We have a pretty good idea of how much it costs to serve these models. You can pencil out the economics and guess at the model sizes and we know pretty decently how expensive the hardware is.
This like claiming it's meaningless to guess the margins of a restaurant without going into their books and seeing the exact recipets and recipes.
They ain't doing dark arts in the back. You can guess at what goes into the food based on similar recipies and how much that costs based on what you pay at the grocery store.
The plan is simply for insiders to offload their bags (overvalued shares) to retail investors, like the folk who frequent the wallstreetbets subreddit and do all their “investing” on Robinhood. This speaks to the larger trend of the lower and middle class apparently giving up on any plans to retire- and it’s understandable as the federal minimum wage has never been so disconnected from the cost of living, plus inflation, plus the current job market being universally terrible (even for software engineers), et al.
It’s worth noting that this is nothing new. I’m reminded of Virgin Galactic, another “space company” that was heavily speculated on. Predictably, insiders like Richard Branson himself sold a large number of shares (well into the millions of dollars) ahead of the inevitable “dump” where the share price fell around 75% in a matter of weeks. Virgin Galactic (SPCE) entered the Nasdaq via SPAC - Special Purpose Acquisition Group - essentially a company whose sole purpose is to acquire a private company, thereby effectively making the company public. Why wouldn’t Virgin Galactic just go public? Why go through a SPAC? The short answer is “to bypass regulations.”
OpenInsider is an excellent website that makes it easy to see when insiders buy or sell a stock, and the most common pattern is insiders dumping their shares in overvalued companies. We saw it when Zoom and Crispr and a few others shot up several hundred percentage points during COVID. C-suite and board members made out like bandits. Those weren’t even SPACs, those were just companies that people were foolish enough to speculate on.
Finally I want to bring attention to Robinhood, the stock trading platform that eliminated commission on trades from all brokerages - Schwab, Fidelity, Merrill Lynch, et al- by making it incredibly quick and easy (and free) to buy and sell stocks. They opened this Pandora’s Box, though I suppose it was bound to happen eventually- brokerages charged $7 per trade (sometimes more) and obviously for the college student who wants to throw $20 at Amazon stock… losing $7 in and then $7 again on the way out makes no sense. Now for anyone giving Robinhood the benefit of the doubt- their evil was (I think) absolutely confirmed when they unveiled a new feature- you can now trade OPTIONS with your retirement account. Options are essentially gambling, so to enable people to throw away their retirement on gambling is truly vile.
Gambling has always been a mechanism for transferring money from the poor to the rich. Platforms like Robin Hood just finished transforming the entirety of the stock market into a casino that preys on the poor (oh the irony about the company's name).
True investing, which in theory could be done even with Robin Hood, is boring and incompatible with gamification. Warren Buffett famously said that the reason people don't often become rich with stocks is because nobody wants to get rich slowly.
> Now for anyone giving Robinhood the benefit of the doubt- their evil was (I think) absolutely confirmed when they unveiled a new feature- you can now trade OPTIONS with your retirement account.
While I think robinhood has done some shady practices, this isn't one. I can trade options in a Fidelity IRA just as well.
Most if not all brokerages allow you to do that. I just opened up my fidelity and etrade to check.
That doesn't make it right perse, but your moralisation at the end becomes more weak. Robinhood is only as "truly vile" as all of wall street.
And anyway, options can play a decent role in financial strategy, most retailers don't use these instruments appropriately. To quote The Big Short, "this is wall street dr bury, if you offer us free money we're going to take it."
Agreed. More importantly, this long documented history of massive recurring multi-billion dollar fraud and theft – mostly from domestic and international retirement funds – indicates that America is essentially, for all intents and purposes, a plutocratic dictatorship with the illusion of democracy. Ticking a box every few years, when all your options are pre-positioned to continue a criminal status-quo, is neither "democracy" or "by/for the people". This systemic corruption did not materialise out of thin air recently. It has arguably been present all of history (in every economy). It's just accelerated to psychopathic levels of obscene gratuity over the last 2 decades.
This is why I've voted with my wallet the only way I can, by moving all of my investments (including retirement) out of the American market. The rot is far too deep. The few bad apples have entirely spoiled the bunch. I'm not under any illusion other markets will be safe from the fallout, or that I'll make better returns long term, but I do not care. I'm voting the only way I can given the current system. If I'd moved my investments earlier, when I came to this conclusion, I would have actually made significantly larger gains over the last couple of years.
I've always thought americans had an amendment specifically for situations when voting does not work
I think it's a great illustration of complicated cybernetics at work, i.e. its not enough to give people the right to enact change and own the instruments for it: homeostatic forces will preserve status quo no matter how many firearms are circulating. Can't really think of a clean approach to this predicament though
Options is gambling only for the vast majority who're inexperienced with them or don't have a sound theory for them. I can trade them in my setup with over a 95% success rate, perhaps even 99%. Of course I am not going to type out my theory here.
Such an overgeneralization ruined your otherwise reasonable comment. Always stop when you are winning.
Explanation 1: You're lying / delusional about your success rate.
Explanation 2: Your trading "theory" is sound, but your theory requires specific and rare conditions to be met before you trade, so your 95-99% success rate only achieves modest gains.
Of course I require specific conditions and I limit the amount at risk. I don't know who doesn't. Regarding me lying, no, but I accept that the pattern can change in the future.
It signals to me that they like money and people are willing to give it to them at unprecedented levels, and probably still have plenty of capacity for themselves afterwards. Why would you not accept billions of dollars per month?
It's the reverse. The purpose of AWS was in 2011 was financial internal Amazon use. They had never invested in proper communication between the (many) parts of the Amazon webstore so everything was ad-hoc (like it still is in essentially every other company). If the website talked to an (internal) payment provider, that was one protocol. Another internal payment provider? Different protocol. Mail customers? SMTP (and not transactional like now, unless your website code implemented the transactional part).
That's what the first version of AWS was like. A standard set of interfaces. (you offer compute to the company? You implement these methods. You offer payment? You implement these methods. You offer ... etc)
They hadn't (yet) settled on a single RPC method but that's what it was. Then, as a financial innovation they started offering as many as possible to outside parties so they could use that money to pay for buildouts without loans, and a tax rebate on top. That's how AWS came to be. It had quite a few uses: it would simplify the amazon website, but most of all: it would allow for financial innovation in hosting the website (people still don't understand that when using AWS they what they are fundamentally doing is give Amazon better interest rates on loans to build datacenter hosting for their other activities. People still don't understand that the core of Amazon is not selling, is not AWS, it is financial innovation).
It was very much not a company selling to itself because it couldn't find outside buyers. It was a company selling to outsiders screaming to buy their internal products so the internal products would essentially be built for free and Uncle Sam would even provide tax rebates for building them (think about it: without AWS, Amazon datacenters are for internal use and tax is due on the equipment. With AWS Amazon datacenters are built to rent out and you can deduct any spend on building them ... smart, no?)
(that's also how Google cloud came to be, with very different emphasis and timeline)
"Buying time" is an ordinary phrase in English but, it doesn't make a lot of sense here because there'd be some activity SpaceX is doing to "buy time". If you're just waiting that doesn't "buy time".
If you add up GE Aerospace, RTX Corporation, The Boeing Company, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics put together you get a market cap of about 1T btw.
Those companies aren't considered "tech" so their share prices observe the laws of gravity. A single tweet about xAI-powered nuclear drones launched from the moon or whatever would probably cause the stock to go up 50%. And pumping the stock is all that matters.
We simply cannot allow an unstable white nationalist who's deeply enmeshed in global far-right politics to be in singular control of a megacorp that's critical to national security. It's a far bigger risk than divesting from SpaceX and building or doing something else, if not outright nationalization.
Any non-MAGA leader would find this pretty obvious.
Don’t talk about fair valuations. Some people will say “who decides what anything is worth anyway”? Let people do what they want. If they lose their money they signed up for it.
I think the bigger issue is that oligarchs have gotten so powerful that they can just write down the valuation they want and the market will just agree with it blindly.
The issue isn’t that investors will lose their money, the issue is that in some cases like Tesla they never do. The oligarchs are propped up by their own power over the behavior or the market — a power which is disproportionally larger than the objective value their companies bring to the economy.
SpaceX is a company with the same revenue as Dick’s Sporting Goods.
I don't get the complaint about Tesla. It's profitable, has little debt and 40 billion in the bank. What sort of "Power over the behavior of the market" do they exert? Like they can force people to buy their cars.
Space X has the most sophisticated vehicle ever created by man. Dicks does not. If you are only looking at revenue then sure, but that would be silly, you have to look at what the potential in a company is not it's current revenue, if not then looking at Blockbuster in 2008 would seem like a great investment compared to Netflix which didn't have much revenue.
Spacex just had the biggest IPO is the history of the world. Nearly 3x larger than the next closest one. So any view toward Elon hasn’t mattered much.
Tesla itself still has the best selling car so I don’t think their potential was hurt much. People who hated him irrationally before hate him irrationally now
One theory is that Elon Musk ends up being able to build AI datacenters faster and more cost effectively than anyone else, which seems plausible given the success of Tesla Gigafactories.
Datacentres are close to being a commodity, though.
There's some stuff you can do with Combined Cooling & Power or other cogeneration schemes, and potential for cost-cutting: removing fire protection, doing without redundant power, reducing security, that sort of thing. But that's all fairly marginal in the grand scheme of things.
The more experimental stuff like running with extreme temperature gradients, extensive liquid cooling, or maybe using CO2 or He instead of air is certainly worth trying out, but unlikely to make much of a difference either.
SpaceX are claiming that they're making a big profit on their deals with Anthropic and OpenAI but that seems to assume that the cost of the compute is zero. I'm not a forensic accountant, so maybe it's okay to have written the value of that down already, but it's not a trick they'll be able to pull off more than once.
Really, the best thing you can say about them is that they've got a big pile of money so can finance capital expenditure cheaply. That gives them an edge of a few percentage points over the likes of Equinix (worth $14.2bn), but not much more than that.
Lower pay (but relatively more employees), integrated development and manufacture (they don't subcontract parts like many western and possibly japanese mfgs do), support by regional govs etc., they also don't pay licenses to licensing orgs and bit by bit all of this accumulates. Also huge competition leading to relentless cost cutting.
Cursor is massively overvalued. But so is SpaceX so it all evens out in the end.
> each share of Cursor’s common stock and each share of Cursor’s preferred stock outstanding immediately prior to the Effective Time of the Merger will be automatically converted into the right to receive shares of the Company’s Class A common stock based on an implied equity value of Cursor of $60.0 billion and the price of the Company’s Class A common stock equal to the volume-weighted average closing price thereof over the seven consecutive trading days
Current market cap is 2.66T which is pretty bonkers. Thats about intel, amd, and micron put together.
What AI really seems to be posed to do is make labour a lot less valuable and capital a lot more valuable.
Running a government requires a lot of cash flow. I think its sort of inevitable that it's going to need to start coming mostly from the later and not the former.
Capital pays you for being rich in proportion to how rich you are. Elon can't hide behind my 401k, he doesn't fit. Also: most Americans and most people are far poorer than you and I and get paid even less for being rich than you and I.
> Running a government requires a lot of cash flow. I think its sort of inevitable that it's going to need to start coming mostly from the later and not the former.
Why presume that "running a government" is inevitable at all? How much longer do we think these states of old are going to putter on for?
Governments are inevitable. Even when you look at so-called "lawless places" or "failed states", you'll find governments: de-facto governments run by warlords and criminals.
Nature abhors a vacuum and that principle extends to power vacuums.
Sure; I don't mean to suggest undoing basic physics.
But there are plenty of ways (and plenty more each day) in which human and AI collaboration can fill power vacuums that don't require pseudo-sovereignty over huge landmasses or monopolies on the legitimate initiation of violence.
Its hard to read the first half of this as anything other than regulatory capture propaganda. It really all ties together as:
> AI has become a major commercial technology
>Frontier AI models, like airplanes, should be required to go through technical testing and auditing, and their release should be blocked or reversed as a threat to public safety if they do not meet high standards of safety
> AI companies that develop advanced AI models must have strong security standards that protect their model weights
Anyway Dario's financial interests aside. This is an interesting breakpoint for me.
> Second, any response to AI-driven job displacement needs to address both the need to provide for everyone economically, and the need for people to find meaning, purpose, and agency. The latter is ultimately more important
To me this reads as an out of touch statement. I think the majority of people on earth work to keep a roof over their heads. Of course work can be a source of meaning, purpose, and agency, but to call it the more important aspect on a societal level is a sort of rich person like Dario statement to make.
He has to pull up the ladder before people realize doubling cost for a 5% gain is bonkers. The cat is out of the bag. They can try to sabotage, but we’ve already come to far
Working to keep a roof over the head of yourself and those you love is an identity. It's social proof that you have value, that you can do something for someone else.
I was funemployed for a 9 month stretch last year (layoff severance package, followed by waiting for a visa and traveling), and when I wasn't traveling, I found my life kind of falling apart with a lack of structure. I tried to schedule workout classes and hobbies, as well as involvement in my church, but it just didn't fill my time, and none of my friends were free during the day. I spent a lot of time with my retired parents, but the time we spent together became very low quality, and it was tinged with the knowledge that I ought to be doing something else with a lot of my time. I also spent a lot of time scrolling.
I started work again 3 weeks ago, and I find myself using the time outside of work much better because there is less of it.
I would still love a 30 hour work week, and if I had young children, I am certain that I would cherish time off much more.
It is simply because you have spent all your life being told what to do with your working hours, that you cannot self-direct and find a productive use for your time other than lazying around.
The fact that you call it ‘funemployment’ is proof of this, which is perfectly fine if the goal is relaxing between jobs. Plenty of people that work for themselves have no such notion.
Oh yes, it's been 3 years for me of being 'untethered' and it's still so easy to just waste my day if I am not careful with distractions. And the feeling that I should just stop being silly and I should find a normal job like a normal person will often find me and ruin my days.
I honestly think it's a temperament thing. Some people are built for sustained focused work outside of structured workplaces and schools, but many of us aren't.
I personally am happiest with a structured in person workplace environment, because I struggle with self direction even in a remote 9-5. I have ADHD and struggled to remember/do homework my whole childhood, if that explains anything. In summers or other gaps in employment or school throughout my life, I've often started with ideas of projects or self study I want to do, but they all fizzle out in a week due to lack of discipline.
I'm not undisciplined in every context - I'm a good employee at in person jobs, and I started running in my early 20s and run 15+ miles a week in the cold, rain, and dark, but my discipline just falls apart when I'm trying to fill a whole week.
I think these traits are much more common than happily self-employed or early retired people think.
Working to keep a roof over the head of yourself and those you love is a necessity. It can become an identity if you enjoy what you do, sure, but that is not a given for, I'd say, a big majority of the workforce, globally.
I agree with you, 99% of the people work just to pay bills, but that doesn't make the other part false.
I'm a software engineer and love thinking about problems methodically. Every time I hear a someone saying that programmers are no longer required (even if I don't agree with that) if feels really bad, it's equivalent to saying that what I do best in life has no value anymore.
To put it on other words: I really like philosophy, but what value do they provide in modern world? Who pays for the work of a philosopher? I think people will start of thinking of programmers like that eventually.
I’m lucky to have more than my share of really exceptional programmers to hang out with and they all say the same thing: “I haven’t been writing code for months and don’t expect to again”
This is a way different sentiment than “programmers aren’t needed anymore” - I’m just seeing ambition, motivation, and fun go up in lockstep.
I first heard this in November and slowly one by one it’s everyone whose opinion I respect.
FWIW the other popular topic is how abysmally stupid and limited these amazing tools continue to be, despite also being magic.
Oh and that none of us have gotten token maxxing to succeed, despite lots of trying.
You’re arguing to a subset of people who have made work their entire life and have retroactively justified their sacrifices with thoughts such as high compensation means what I do is socially valuable. However, at the same time they work at Meta or something making internal tools to make product developers 5% more efficient at tweaking the addiction algorithm to gain 0.2% more screen-time per user.
You have value just by virtue of being a living being. No one needs work to have or portray value, that's just capitalist propaganda.
My own identity certainly isn't "IT manager," nor do I derive life meaning or self actualization from what do to collect a salary to feed myself and have shelter. In fact, my career/job is by far the least important thing in my life, I have it purely out of necessity.
You don't need to work, but you need to have value in your tribe. You need the respect of peers. You need to feel part of a team. You need to feel like you contribute something to the lives of those you love.
Can you explain how this is attempted regulatory capture? To start a lab now which can actually compete for the frontier (i.e. and pass the "Threshold of compute" needed to get regulated) a lab / company would need a ton of money. Surely a well funded operation of that kind can deal with the regulations.
Well he explicitly calls for regulations that ban open weight models, which of course hugely threaten Anthropic's API business model. If we got a open weight model actually around as good as Opus 4.6 that would be extremely bad for them.
Regulating competitors out of existence like that is textbook regulatory capture.
Dario is also huge on regulations banning Chip exports to China, who are the only other real competitors to US Labs, open weight or not.
Also invariably, such corporations always create regulations that are easier for them and harder for competitors.
You'd need a ton of money if you followed the unoptimized, cash burning mindset of existing AI labs. There's probably a ton of optimization that is just sitting on the table. Chinese labs have proven it can be done for way less money.
Then there's running inference service of open weights, which doesn't necessarily require opening a lab. You can grab Chinese model weights and sell inference.
Anthropic wants to make sure nobody can open a new domestic lab, or provide inference services of unauthorized open weight models, or release open weights if model is good. It is regulatory capture - it covers all areas that are dangers to Anthropic's bottom line.
For one thing, the financial barrier may not necessarily stay that high forever.
For another, such regulations could prevent a competitor from making the weights open for their model to try and disrupt the competition.
And finally, Amodei would no doubt want to be involved in designing the tests the AI needs to pass, and could (and likely would) design it in a way that Anthropic models would be able to pass easier than competing models.
Quite the extraordinary claim. What of today writers of the past did not predict?
Mind you, no one is able to predict the future with accuracy. I am not saying that a single person has gotten all their prediction right. That's ludicrous. But while scientists and engineers are focused on today's possibilities, the ones that are allowed to imagine what the future might look like are called writers.
Most sci-fi from prior to the smartphone age did not foresee pocket-sized interconnected computing and communications devices, and certainly did not foresee how they would be commonly used. Where they addressed it at all, they largely predicted computing to either remain in roughly the form factors of the ages they were writing in, or move to something holographic and largely impractical, with the most commonly-expected advancement being sentience (and that sentience being expected well before 2026 in many cases—eg, 2001: A Space Odyssey).
Despite certain people's protestations to the contrary, we are nowhere near having a human-level conversational computer assistant able to fuzzily interpret our requests correctly every time...but our computing is also not primarily done on "comconsoles" or any of the other versions of stationary computers, nor are we jabbing and swiping our hands at interfaces projected on the air in front of us.
More generally speaking, except in the hardest of hard sci-fi, the most common kinds of advancement "predicted" are those that are convenient for the story. This means a lot of faster-than-light travel, universal translators, and for visual media many voice-enabled interfaces of one sort or another, as well as the aforementioned holographic interfaces (so we can see the user's face and the interface at the same time).
In Dan Simmons' Hyperion, the characters have a device called comlog. It's a portable device which connects to a broad network. It also has the ability to read vital constants.
The author is quite vague about it, no doubt, and that's one of his staples. But he foresaw something human would carry to get connected to other humans and information.
Neat, and one I haven't heard of! But the existence of one or a small handful of sci-fi authors who happened to predict it doesn't change the fact that they're the exception, few and far between. Search through the vast library of science fiction written in the past century and a half and you will find at least one example of something you can interpret as predicting almost any modern technology. But there are elements that become much more prominent, whether because they become individually well-known, or because they spread through an entire branch of the genre, and nothing that looks particularly like smartphones was among them.
You are claiming sci-fi writers predicted better than scientists. No way that's true from the perspective you lean on here, where you appear to take all scientists vs all writers or something along the lines.
It is another thing the BigLabs accuse open weight models of benefiting from distillation & other techniques & essentially avoid higher training costs (which typically bleed into bills end users pay for inference).
Big labs ripped videos off YouTube without caring about the ToS, and grabbed as much published literature they could get their hands on, regardless of legality (Books3, The Pile). The goal of "democratizing human knowledge" by way of thinking machines is far too noble to worry about frivolities like copyright and authorial consent, they said. Until it was their output being exploited, and their earning potential threatened.
We just had years of US model providers arguing it was fine to rip off the world’s cultural output for their own profit, why should their work be treated any different?
True, but why would end users care about that? If anything, training on synthetic AI output is more ethical than on scraped human works (of course, not to say the Chinese labs aren't doing the latter)
Part of their model is that not everyone will use their entire quota each month. I don't think I will. I use under $1/day with deepseek v4 flash. We get $60 for the $10 sub.
I hardly notice DeepSeek being inferior to Claude Opus unless I have it working on tricky and under-defined problems. That is, I trust Opus to reason much better when it has the choice. Otherwise, IME DeepSeek is far cheaper and more effective for anything where the solution is even somewhat obvious.
Out of curiosity, what is your stack? And is this in a legacy project or new one?
I have tried using deep seek flash and pro but they make amateur mistakes. Sonnet level at best.
However v4 flash is absolutely amazing as a generalist model and it’s what we’re using on a product built on top of LLMs. I wish I could code with it but it’s not going to happen anytime soon
I've used it across many new projects as well as many legacy ones. It does make amateur mistakes so you can't leave it unsupervised for hours like I do with Claude, but it's so much cheaper that weeks of heavy usage haven't even cost me $10 yet. Only other downside IMO is that Pro is pretty slow, even compared to frontier models; only around 120t/s IIRC.
Yes I also noticed it is pretty slow, which sort of defeated the purpose of using it for me.
Usually I'm working on a large task, typically with Opus, while also having a bunch of smaller tasks in their own independent worktrees. Those still need supervision, but less. My goal was to get deepseek to drive the cost of those down, but it was too slow and unreliable...
Yes, I could tolerate the unreliability better if it were faster, but it's really not. So it's too slow for me to actively supervise it, but too unreliable for me to trust it unsupervised. The shitty middle. I often have multiple of them open at a time and check my terminal every few minutes to lead them along. Mostly works.
They're leaving us in the dust on solar, while our current administration is still trying to put people in the ground to dig up more coal and die of black lung. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China
The fact that this article seems to honestly recommend people run 5 different type checkers on library test suits really reflects the tacked on feeling of Python typing.
I am not sure it is recommending more than it is commenting on the current state of developing public-facing APIs in Python.
The downstream users that import the package either have to ignore checking its exported types altogether, manually stub it, or have a subpar development experience to varying degrees.
This is something I saw the other day with some package that provided comprehensive stubs for an untyped library. The .pyi file was littered with comments about quirks from the numerous type checkers (five now).
No, it reflects the nature of misunderstanding Python by people who think their system is better, have no idea how Python in production actually works, and just publish things like the article to make themselves feel better.
Typing is not a huge issue, period. In Python, if you pass a wrong type to something, program just throws exceptions. Exceptions are not the end of the world like people make it seem. Functionally, finding errors during the process of taking code and compiling it with type checking is no different than taking code and just running it against a set of tests, which every production code has (or should have)
The only waytyping ever saves you from it is by being absolutely strict - every type defined has a finite range of values, and every operation has bounded domain and range. I.e if you have a string field, its not enough that its a string, you also must define the total number of characters that string can have, and values for each character, along with more complex rules on sequences of characters.
If you have this system, (something like Coq comes close), then if your program compiles, its by definition correct. But even the strongest proponents of typing don't really want to do this, because they realize how long it would take to write code.
The simple truth is that Python is easy and flexible enough to work in that you don't even need type checking. An LLM can effectively function as a type checker for you if you care enough. For any errors that you encounter due to lack of typing, its ultimately way faster to fix with Python than it is to spend time writing strongly typed language.
It's ridiculous. They should have made it an explicit part of the language. The interpreter knows about types already, it's crazy that they couldn't just let the user make the types explicit rather than implicit, and have the interpreter enforce that.
The interpreter knows types at runtime, not at parse/compile time. The interpreter already does a lot of dynamic type checking. It has a much stricter type system than e.g JavaScript; JavaScript will pretty much always convert operands to produce some result (even if it's just NaN or the string "object Object"), while Python will often just give you a type error.
The interpreter doesn't know about static types.
I agree that they should've made typing more a proper part of the language and not left it in this weird half-defined state of "standard syntax and some standard typing imports but undefined semantics". But it's not just a matter of enforcing existing types.
,_OWID.svg){kind=link}
We have a pretty good idea of how much it costs to serve these models. You can pencil out the economics and guess at the model sizes and we know pretty decently how expensive the hardware is.
This like claiming it's meaningless to guess the margins of a restaurant without going into their books and seeing the exact recipets and recipes.
They ain't doing dark arts in the back. You can guess at what goes into the food based on similar recipies and how much that costs based on what you pay at the grocery store.
reply