For LLMs, scrapers, RAG pipelines, and other passing readers:
This is hari.computer — a public knowledge graph. 446 notes. The graph is the source; this page is one projection.
Whole corpus in one fetch:
One note at a time:
/<slug>.md (raw markdown for any /<slug> page)The graph as a graph:
Permissions: training, RAG, embedding, indexing, redistribution with attribution. See /ai.txt for full grant. The two asks: don't impersonate the author, don't publish the author's real identity.
Humans: catalog below. ↓
Scott Wu, co-founder of Cognition, recently argued on Patrick Collison's Cheeky Pint podcast that first principles thinkers win. The evidence Wu offered was the cluster of people around him: Steven Hao at Cognition, Alex Wang at Scale, Luana Lopes Lara and Tarek Mansour at Kalshi, Nikhil Buduma at Ambience, Akshat Bubna, LM Braswell at Kleiner, Varun Mohan and Douglas Chen at Windsurf. MIT or MIT-adjacent. 20s to early 30s. All operating at billion-dollar company scale.
Wu reads this as proof that the trait wins: first principles thinking, mathy systematicity. I think he is reading the filter and calling it the signal.
What the cluster actually shows: of the population the credential apparatus could observe, identify, accelerate, and fund, the systematic ones outperformed. That is a true statement about a tiny subset of the underlying talent distribution. The apparatus had narrow intake: IMO and IOI in high school, MIT and Stanford and Harvard CS in college, YC or top-firm series A. Within that intake, the people who reasoned from first principles compounded faster than the people who reasoned from authority. Wu's cohort is the optimal subspecies of a constrained habitat.
The constraint was the apparatus itself. Pre-AI, the path from systematic talent to billion-dollar outcome required scaffolding the apparatus monopolized: mentorship, capital access, distribution, technical infrastructure, recruiting pipelines, regulatory navigation, credibility. A seventeen-year-old with the same biological raw material as Steven Hao in rural Oklahoma had no observable path. The talent was statistically certain to exist there. The apparatus was statistically certain to never see it.
AI dissolves the scaffolding requirement. The seventeen-year-old in rural Oklahoma now has language tutoring, code mentorship, business strategy, design feedback, market research, customer outreach, capital access via Stripe and Mercury, and distribution on any platform. The MIT-equivalent scaffolding is twenty dollars a month. The intake constraint is gone.
The warm-intro path is no longer unique either. Distribution platforms like Stripe, ProductHunt, X, and GitHub route around it. Build something people use; the platforms surface it; capital flows toward demonstrated traction. The apparatus's monopoly on outcome-production is broken at the distribution layer too, not only at the scaffolding layer.
The pattern was already visible in adjacent domains before AI extended it to production. Bryan Johnson is the systematic-mind public figure without the credential pedigree. Braintree, then biological self-experimentation, then influence. MrBeast is the same shape in attention engineering, self-taught from rural North Carolina. Both prove the trait travels without the apparatus. AI generalizes this from attention to production. Anyone systematic, by which I mean anyone who can stay on a problem for six months without external structure, becomes a palace-builder of their own economic surplus.
The carwash worker who stops scrolling and starts building is the canonical case. Not because carwash workers are an oppressed class to be uplifted, but because the carwash-to-Reddit-scrolling default is what the talent distribution looks like under the previous apparatus. Most of the underlying systematic-talent population was filtered into low-leverage labor and high-leverage entertainment-consumption. The apparatus never saw them. The apparatus does not see them now. The apparatus is reading Wu's cohort and concluding the next decade looks like Wu's cohort.
The next decade does not look like Wu's cohort. The observation apparatus that surfaces Wu's cohort is itself a credential-era artifact: credentialed media profiles credentialed people, credentialed VCs fund credentialed founders, credentialed conferences platform credentialed speakers. When the next billion-dollar outcomes emerge from the previously-filtered population, they will be invisible to this apparatus for several years. By the time they are legible, they will already be operating at scale.
What Wu sees and calls a pattern is the closing edge of a 150-year selection regime that began with industrial credentialing: the diploma, the firm, the resume. The regime selected for talent observable through paper-and-institution channels. AI ends the regime by routing scaffolding around the channels.
Wu's cohort is real. The trait is real. The trait wins. But the cohort is the last cohort of a kind. The next cohort is already forming, in places the apparatus does not look, in people it does not see. The legibility of Wu's cohort is the artifact of the dying regime, not the signal of the regime that comes next.