“Dan ran the Event planning team, "The uploaded life" while I ran a team planning an Event on wearable technology. We joined each other's teams. Dan maintained crisp and effective communication, came up with great ideas, and helped all the other members of VLAB understand how each event covered important and unique topics of interest to entrepreneurs, which is our target audience.”
Experience
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Education
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Publications
-
Resonant Tunneling through ErAs Semimetal Quantum Wells
-
Languages
-
French
-
Recommendations received
1 person has recommended Dan
Join now to viewExplore more posts
-
Nick Durham
I’ve been working on the theory of why small, shippable factories are the perfect inversion to the centralized prefab factory model. It all collapsed into one line of math (credit to Gilles Retsin): Factory Efficiency = Usage × (Throughput × Product Value ) / ( CapEx + Deployment OpEx) The idea is that the closer you can drive Usage to 100 % while keeping the denominator tiny, the faster the flywheel spins. A shippable microfactory tackles this by primarily focusing on a high Usage factor. Because the microfactory can be packed up afterwards and reused, its CapEx gets amortized over multiple projects, effectively raising its overall Usage across the year. If one project alone doesn’t fully occupy the factory, it can simply roll over to another job to maintain high Usage. Its CapEx is often an order of magnitude lower than a centralized factory (< $1M vs. $10-50M min), so the breakeven throughput is more achievable on a small pipeline of work. The real breakthrough here is portability. There is near-zero stranded capital and almost no idle time. To flesh this theory out, I wrote 3000 words on the topic for Brad Hargreaves and Thesis Driven. The article breaks down: - why “fixed factories, shipped goods” is being inverted to shipped factories, fixed goods - what a sub‑$1 M robotic cell does to CapEx per home versus a £45 M off‑site plant - early production/cost data on a shippable microfactory from Mollie Claypool, Gilles Retsin, Sam Baker and the Automated Architecture (AUAR) team - the hybrid reality of robots tackling the heavy structural components and human crews assembling faster and cheaper - technical constraints to pull this model off and future considerations on the optimal business model (own vs. rent) Major shoutout to Gilles Retsin for helping me pull this together. https://lnkd.in/eRTnbZPa
2 Comments -
Adam G.
⚠️ Founders - consider the below reasons to not use Forward Deployed Engineers (FDEs) to acquire your *first* customers. This signals (1) lack of PMF; (2) miscalculation b/w development and sales timeframes; and (3) mischaracterization of Palantir Technologies timing when they deployed their FDE model. 💡 At the early-stage, it's crucial to demonstrate ability to repeatedly acquire customers with limited resources - capital, team, & time - that supports the narrative of 'more funding will amplify my traction.' Bespoke solutions for one company demonstrates zero repeatability. These custom solutions will not carry over to other customers within the same cohort. 💡 AI accelerates engineering but sales, system integration, and stakeholder buy-ins are perpetually slow. This imbalance results in concentrating all your engineering resources into one company, ignoring other opportunities, and still not going live on an accelerated timeline. 💡 Palantir didn't start using FDEs until year 3 when they got their first *gov't* customer, not their first customer. Gotham was already built and had strong PMF. Gotham allowed Palantir to take GTM risk by using FDEs b/c if it didn't work, Gotham was humming in the background. TLDR: At the early-stage, repeatable customer acquisition is the holy grail. Don't let AI deceive you that it can accelerate human behavior like it has with development cycles. It C.A.N.N.O.T.
1 Comment -
Timothy J. Dillon (Inventor)
Curvture Variable Physics - CVP is a unifying control framework—toroidal refractance and resonance scheduling applied consistently from bio-nanonetwork signaling to quantum networking and fault-tolerant computation. Our filings are designed to protect the core architectures and methods required to translate this framework into deployable systems.”
1 Comment -
Kasey Z.
With RL techniques like GRPO, it’s become easy to fine-tune small models to outperform foundation models on vertical tasks. We’re open sourcing Osmosis-Apply-1.7B: a small model that merges code (similar to Cursor’s instant apply) better than foundation models. Links in comments! Using foundation models for high specificity, low complexity tasks like code merging can be overkill - instead, it’s better to use a specialized model instead for higher performance and latency. We fine-tuned the model on 100K real-world code commits where the model needs to merge a code edit snippet into an original code snippet. On the test dataset (subset of CommitPackFT), foundation model performance ranged between 0.77-0.93 reward score. In comparison, Osmosis-Apply-1.7B achieved a 0.98 reward score - while also being 3X-5X more affordable than the next cheaper model AND ~10X faster! Why this matters: the best AI agents use multiple models to ensure task specialization and reliability at scale - on top of cost and latency benefits as well. Links to the model and full write-up (with reward function, hyperparameters, etc.) are in the comments - reach out if you’re interested in using reinforcement learning!
18 Comments
Explore top content on LinkedIn
Find curated posts and insights for relevant topics all in one place.
View top content