Bingo. All this agentic hype is just people discovering POCs. Yes you can hodgepodge semi-reliable solutions where you don't really know what you're trying to build so you wrap it in a layer than can sometimes approximate logic and decision making, so that you don't have to use logic or make decisions. Amazing.
Sooner or later you have to build the real thing, and the cost and slowness of token-based computation become unacceptable.
I am, too, and it got me thinking... why? And I realized that I've tried to be polite in all my interactions my whole life and I'm not going to practice being terse and commanding for a few pennies worth of tokens.
The U.S. has much stronger free speech protections than any peer. Have you seen the speech (chat) control laws being instituted in Europe in the last few years?
Last fall, seeing the writing on the wall, I pieced together an "AI" rig, 96GB ram, 2x RTX 3090, 9950X - not exactly top of the line, but it came in around CDN$3000 all in all, with most parts second hand. I don't think I could build that for CDN$10000 today.
I've been using it pretty steadily for a variety of personal projects, and the only improvement (aside from the obvious "more VRAM") I feel pressed to make is a portable AC unit / some kind of a focused cooling solution. The rig raises the ambient temperature in the office by 4C at least.
Now with the murmurs of even the large players reconsidering their AI spend, and usage-based pricing shifts, having a self-contained, owned, and independently administered compute resource is looking better and better.
There's a fortune to be made for whomever produces a car that has minimal features, and and electric-drivetrain with onboard gasoline generator. No screens, knobs and buttons, no assists. Extra fortune if you can licence designs and revive some of the old-and-loved classics with new safety features.
> electric-drivetrain with onboard gasoline generator
Generally speaking, it's more efficient to power a car using a series-parallel hybrid system than an electric drivetrain with generator (series hybrid) while not really being any more complicated.
In a series hybrid (electric with generator), you're losing energy converting the rotational energy into electric energy. It's better to use the engine's output to power the wheels while it's in an efficient range. It's why Toyota's series-parallel hybrid design offered better mileage than vehicles that (primarily or fully) operated as series hybrids like the Chevy Volt.
> No screens
You can't really sell a car without a screen due to government regulations which require backup cameras (since 2018 in North America, since 2022 in the EU and Japan).
> no assists
Automatic Emergency Braking is going to be required in the US in 2029 (detecting frontal crashes about to happen and automatically braking, including pedestrian detection).
The EU requires even more including blind spot detection and lane-keeping assist.
I certainly agree that cars need knobs and buttons for controls like AC/heat, music, etc. However, it'd be hard to make a car where you aren't putting in a screen and assistive technology. I think a better argument would be to make a car where the screen was simply Apple CarPlay/Android Auto and a backup camera - rather than shoving a lot of garbage UX into it.
> Automatic Emergency Braking is going to be required in the US in 2029 (detecting frontal crashes about to happen and automatically braking, including pedestrian detection).
I'm never going to want to drive a car that has that.
My car has AEB and it's great. I'll never drive another car without it. Why not take the energy out of the impact? Humans aren't perfect, and even less so as we age.
"Impact" as in an inevitable crash. I like it because it has unquestionably caused the avoidance of two cases where my car would have hit something. Once when I was merging onto a freeway and the car ahead of me basically brakechecked panic'd at the last second while I was briefly looking over my shoulder at the traffic I was merging into, and the other when a friend of mine borrowed my car and nearly hit a deer. Both cases the AEB kicked in, the car came to a very aggressive halt, and the crash was avoided. Yes, the AEB has kicked in at other times, but on the whole, it's been great and I appreciate having it. Probably other manufacturers have different implementations and different experiences. Mine is a Tesla.
So if you get into a crash, you would rather not have an extra few hundred milliseconds of deceleration? You would rather have more costly repairs, more injuries, maybe even more liability? I just don't see what you get in exchange for that by avoiding these features, or what principal is at stake
My car already has this awesome safety feature called a "windscreen". It's a bit of thick glass about a metre and a half across, kind of like the screens that cars now have inside but here's the clever bit - it lets you look outside the car! It's completely transparent with no electronics (although mine has very fine wires embedded to heat it to clear ice off, that's not really "active" in any sense).
By looking out of this "windscreen" at other things in front of your car, you can prevent crashes.
Ah, I see where you are coming from. As a driver with perfect attention, zero ms response time, 360 degree vision and a car that never fails in a world where no other driver ever makes mistakes, this feature doesn't help you.
You still never articulated an upside to not having it though.
I guess you know your cutoff date, then. My own perspective differs.
A couple of years ago, I was involved in a stupid car crash that probably would have been prevented by this kind of system. Everyone was pretty much OK (yay), but both vehicles were ruined. And for me, at least, it was a complete and utter pain in the ass to find something else to drive that fit my intended use.
It is probably like with smart TV's where the value of the telemetry data ends up subsidizing a significant fraction of the hardware. Car manufacturers seem to be doing a lot of experiments with what they can charge for in terms of ongoing subscriptions. I am sure if they could show ads without it being considered distracting they would.
I think the problem is there isn't a fortune there. It would be a successful endeavor, but not something to rake in huge piles of cash. The kinds of leaders and investors who could pull off what you're describing are instead working where they can make multi-millions rather that multi-hundreds of thousands.
There is no way that is true, basic cars have always existed, like Dacia with bare minimum features to pass all requirements and they are far from being popular. The fact of the matter is, is that people just like fancy things and cars especially
A screen for the back-up camera is federally required for new cars in the US, afaik. But using the screen for additional purposes is still optional... for now...
A year ago China stopped buying soybeans from the US is seems ("China Bought $12.6 Billion in U.S. Soybeans Last Year. Now, It’s $0." - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/25/business/china-soybean-sa...), was that resumed, or who are all these new soybeans going to? Is it all for national use instead of export?
When China buys from someone else (Brazil - nobody else has significant soy bean surplus) that means whoever was buying from that someone else now needs to go to the US.
The US also uses a lot of soy beans internally. Prices are down, but farmers are still selling soybeans and with careful management are making money.
I don't think international trade is so stable that any shift would imply equal and opposite shifts in trade. For example it looks like Brazil's production is up 5% while China's overall usage may be down 6%.
It'll know however Brazil has been greatly expanding how much farming they've been are able to do in recent years. I wouldn't call that idle capacity because it never was used and it never was intended to be used in previous years but now they're turning what previously was wild land - forests and such into farmland
I think these changes were mostly from earlier factors but will pressure the prices of soybeans in the opposite direction from the wheat shortage which isn't very good (for soy bean farmers) given the risk that higher fertilizer costs isn't adequately reflected at the next harvest time.
If you can sell to 3 markets, you can negotiate. If one stops buying from you, now you only have 2 markets. And they each know that you can't sell to the other, regardless of demand.
The less favourable your selling position, typically the less you get...
Soybeans are a pretty stellar food for protein per calorie.
And to stop misinformation in its tracks:
> A March 2021 meta-analysis published in Reproductive Toxicology concluded that neither soy protein nor isoflavone intake significantly affects reproductive hormone levels in men. Analyzing data from 41 studies and 1,753 participants, the researchers found no statistically significant effects on testosterone or estrogen regardless of intake dose or duration.
Downvoted even with a reputable link lol. It’s obviously true though. If soybeans could even semi-reliably affect hormone levels in either direction, trannies would be all over them.
- tap into a reserve, like buying from china itself
- buy from somebody else who grows their industry
- consume less and produce less of the downstream item
- swap to an alternative input, eg. canola
its a national security issue to take dependencies on imports to or exports from america now. if a nation does, it will be part of trade negotiation, where the benefit from the US outweighs the liability.
If you havent watched the Carney Davos speech, its worth a watch or a rewatch - this is how the world is thinking about US trade. Significantly risky. I think the US soy price still has room to go down, as other countries take over the production, and have favoured nation agreements with each other
idk if its really a bif deal though, farmers grow soy because its good for their fields, and getting to sell it is an extra bonus. if a farmer is dependent on selling the soy, they probably arent doing so well overall
China has a tendency to shift to self-reliance or importing from more pliable neighborswhenever they execute policies like that. So even if they’re buying again, I highly doubt it is at the same rate it once was
I expect other nations are still consuming US soybeans. China stopped because it was particularly negatively targeted by US tariff policy.
But make no mistake, it has caused problems for farmers.
The report from my small hometown farmers is that everything, except for beef, is down right now while the prices of inputs like fertilizer are high. Some of the farmers in my hometown have already sold their land to megacorp farmers in response because they simply can't survive.
> I expect other nations are still consuming US soybeans
But who? Compared to 2024, 2025 had almost half soybean exports it seems (https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/commodities/soybeans), I'm guessing most of the difference was China basically stopped buying soybeans.
But it's a huge difference, yet production seems to be ramping up? I don't understand why they'd do that when the exports are going down?
I don't think it's ramping up [1]. Production is pretty static.
And the chart you linked appears that exports for non-china countries is basically static.
Were I to guess what's going on, but we'll see when the 2026 data comes in, is that soy farmers are likely storing a good portion of their bean harvest. Some will still have contracts that keep them farming. I suspect that many have switched over to other crops.
> I suspect that many have switched over to other crops.
On the margins. However most farmers consider their soil health and long term plans. All good farmers (especially the mega corps) will intentionally plant most crops not based on what they expect out of the market next year, but what their soil needs. Most fields will not produce well if you don't consider what was grown on it last year and in turn what you want to produce next year. A few fields (millions of acres worth, but still only a few) there are options and those will adjust, but for the vast majority you have to follow a long term plan or your soil will fail and bankrupt you long term. Even the fields that do have options, it is just this year, and next they will have to return to a long term plan with no option. That where I live you have go [corn, corn, soybeans] or [corn, soybeans, corn], but [corn, corn, corn] is not an option. (I'm not aware of anyone doing two years of soybeans but maybe it happens)
> Most fields will not produce well if you don't consider what was grown on it last year and in turn what you want to produce next year.
I've never worked at a megacorp farm, but my observation is that the majority of farmers aren't thinking like this. Granted it might be different because the crops around me which are most commonly grown are wheat, barley, and hay. IDK the effects of soybeans/corn on soil and it's possible they have a much more pronounced effect. For wheat, barley, hay, most the farmers I know will plant it YoY and use fertilizer to counteract soil deficiencies.
Crop rotation, AFAIK, is mostly employed to reduce the need for fertilizer.
It definitely is a problem because farmers tend to over-fertilize which can cause nasty problems the runoff water.
I also expect this will likely become something a lot more farmers start to practice as fertilizer prices spike.
There's a risk of food prices increasing across the board and shortages in poorer countries if fertilizer exports stay restricted, or in other words increased demand for soybeans in the later half of 2026.
One of the wild things about farming is that crop storage works a lot better than what you can do at home. They have it down to an exact science, the temperature, humidity, etc of the crop in question and how long it can be stored for.
On reddit, some farmers have cited 1 to 1 and 1/2 years of storage. [1]
I suspect that a large portion of these soybeans will be stored with the hope that the market gets better in the future (I've never farmed soybeans. We did wheat and hay). Potatoes and apples are the same way.
For Potatoes, they'll measure for hotspots throughout the year to make sure there's not rotting going on in the core, but assuming that doesn't happen, they can be stored for a very long time in giant potato piles. Hay is weird. Fermentation is actually a desirable thing because it releases nutrients (and the cows LOVE it). It makes storage super easy. I've had multi-year old hay bales that we've fed to cows.
I agree - AI makes it easier to wrangle legacy code. I think the author's point is that if you lose access to the AI tools, everything becomes more daunting -- because you've been comfortably moving mountains with heavy equipment, and now it's back to hand tools.
That is true, but if you lost access to modern computers and had to do everything by punchcard you would lose productivity too. I kinda dont like that argument
> Humans must remain fully responsible and accountable for consequences arising from the use of AI systems
But, but... but this is the key selling points for all the corpo ghouls and sv lunatics! Abdication of responsibility in pursuit of profit is the holy grail here.
Sooner or later you have to build the real thing, and the cost and slowness of token-based computation become unacceptable.
reply