David Oks: “Let’s say you run a factory. You decide that you want your lines to produce fewer defective goods: maybe you want to improve your yield from 95 percent to 98 percent. So you decide to invest in better training for your workers: maybe training now lasts six weeks instead of two weeks. This works, and now your yield is higher; but that change makes other things more attractive too. For example: now that your yield is higher, it makes sense for you to reduce your inventory, since fewer defects mean you no longer need a large buffer of spare parts to replace the bad ones. So now you’ve cut your inventory: but now it makes sense for you to shorten your production runs and switch more frequently between products, since without a mountain of inventory to work through you can afford to change what the line is making. And if you’re switching frequently between products, then it makes sense for you to invest in flexible, reprogrammable machinery instead of dedicated, single-purpose equipment. So one relatively small tweak shifts the entire calculus of what you do. In short: each practice makes the others more valuable, and each practice is valuable because it’s implemented alongside other complementary practices. Doing just one of these things—investing in flexible machinery, for example—doesn’t really make sense alone. The practice needs to work well with all the other practices that you have.”
Eric Ries on the key takeaway from his new book Incorruptible: “That it’s entirely possible to build a company that is both profitable and also stays true to its purpose. We’ve all unconsciously absorbed an orthodoxy that says that these attributes are opposed. The truth is that the most valuable companies are the ones that build trust with everyone they touch, customers, employees, and investors alike.”
WSJ: “Silicon Valley venture-capital firms are desperate for bets that can survive—and thrive in—the AI reckoning. Investors known for early investments in software, internet services and social-media companies like Snap and Uber have begun venturing far outside of their comfort zones into investments in physical technologies and materials tied to the artificial-intelligence boom. They are making new wagers on AI infrastructure like chips, power and manufacturing, as well as a far-ranging category called physical AI, or autonomous machines that can understand and perform complex real-world tasks. Venture-capital investment in global robotics and physical AI grew to $26 billion in 2025 from $4.2 billion in 2019, according to PitchBook data. This year, companies in those sectors have already raised more than $23 billion as of May 20.”
FT: “China’s ability to mass manufacture a wide range of goods at low cost stems from the governance that enables it. Centralised control allows Beijing to easily mobilise resources and co-ordinate measures — across provincial governments, state-owned banks and regulatory bodies — to meet its policy goals. Limited democratic accountability also gives the Chinese Communist Party the ability to pursue long-term industrial policy and sidestep opposition, such as planning disputes. China combines this central power with intense decentralised competition. Regional officials and enterprises compete for state backing, which is often conditional on performance, creating strong incentives to prioritise output and innovation ahead of profits. This model of state-led capitalism has been refined over decades and has underpinned the country’s ability to nurture entire industries, scale and develop dense, vertically integrated supply chains.”
