没有工业基础，就没有国防工业基础。这给我们敲响了警钟：我们必须重新开始建造。
英文原文
You don't have a defense industrial base without an industrial base. It's been a real wake-up call that we need to get building again.人工智能将成为一种能够应用于物理世界的极其非凡的工具。但现实是，人工智能目前还不会拧扳手。
英文原文
>> AI will be a phenomenal tool that can be used in the physical world. The reality is AI cannot turn [music] a wrench yet.全球市值最高的10家公司中，大部分其实是硬件公司。
英文原文
>> 10 most valuable companies in the world, like the majority of them are hardware companies. [music]亲自参观其中一个场地是什么感觉？你在建造一个真实存在的东西。你不是坐在电脑桌前，你是在外面的世界里。这听起来有点性感和浪漫，但当你实际去做时，它其实非常艰苦。
英文原文
>> What's it like to visit one of these sites? You're building a physical thing. You're not sitting at a desk on your computer. You're out [music] in the world. It sounds kind of sexy and romantic, but when you're actually doing it, it's rough.当你来到 Mariana，来到 Hadrian，来到 Castellana 时，你看到的人完全沉浸在对自己所做事情的热情之中。这带来了极好的成果。
英文原文
>> When you show up at Mariana, when you show up at Hadrian, when you show [music] up at Castellana, you literally get people who are so passionate about what they're doing. That produces really good results.有一张著名的图表，对比了美国发电量与中国新增能源产出。要缩小这一差距需要什么？我认为这不是一个技术问题。我认为这是……
英文原文
>> There's that [music] very famous chart of like US power production versus China new energy production. What would it take to [music] close that gap? I don't think that that is a technology problem. I think that that's a美国工业基础与“美国活力”50强榜单
Connor 和 Aaron，非常感谢你们今天参加播客。我们今天聚在一起讨论 AD 50 以及今年的榜单。让我们直接切入正题。我知道今年的一大主题是美国工业基础。你们能谈谈今年我们学到了什么，以及为什么这是当下如此重要的主题吗？
英文原文
Connor and Aaron, thank you so much for joining the podcast today. We're here to talk about AB 50 and this year's list. And let's just get straight into things. Um, I know a big theme of this year was the American industrial base. Can you talk about what we've learned this year and why that's such a big important theme right now?我们一直在说，没有工业基础就没有国防工业基础。我认为今年真正把这一点展现得非常清晰。随着全球冲突的发生，人们意识到过去几十年我们工业基础的空心化，实际上在战场上给士兵带来了切实的后果——包括美国士兵和我们的盟友。我认为这对美国来说是一记切实的警钟，警示我们必须重新开始制造业的建设。
英文原文
>> We've been saying for a while you don't have a defense industrial base without an industrial base. And I think this year really put that into perspective. Um, you know, with conflicts going on in the world and and realizing that um, you know, the hollowing out of our industrial base that's happened over the last several decades actually has real consequences on the battlefield for soldiers, um, both, you know, American soldiers and our allies. And I think it's been a real wake-up call in the United States, um, that uh, we need to get building again.是的，我认为这也不单单是一个因素的作用，而是多个因素几乎在同时发生。当你退一步看：一方面是世界冲突；另一方面是资本市场的持续演进——我们稍后肯定会讨论资本流入这个生态系统的情况。但我认为更重要的一点是，你现在确实拥有了一群创业者，他们实际上主动举手说：“我要在这个生态里建造。”这不仅对我们国家极度重要，而且你还能在这里建立起极其有价值的企业。
所以，我认为这正是地缘政治因素、资本市场以及创业者各方共同汇聚的结果。我觉得现在是一个非常有趣的建造时机，也是我们进行投资的好时机。当我们审视今年的 AD 50 时，我们思考了我们在美国活力（American Dynamism）历史上所处的位置。我们仍处于早期，但我认为逐渐演进出的一个主题是：你真的需要从头到尾、作为一个整体来看待美国活力领域的企业——从地下开采出来的原料输入，到制造物件的工厂，再到最终的端到端系统。
因此，这也是我们今年搭建 AD 50、从这三个维度去思考的方式。这三个支柱中的每一个对于最终产品或最终系统都具有独特的重要性。但在过去，我认为人们并不习惯这样思考。而我们投资组合中许多解决这些问题的公司，已经开始从原料输入视角、工厂视角，以及现在的系统视角来通盘考量。
英文原文
>> Yeah, I mean, I think it's also something that is not just one factor, but it's multiple factors that are all kind of happening at the same time. And when you take a step back and you say, okay, world conflict, you have kind of a continued evolution of the capital markets, which I'm sure we'll talk about a bit later about capital flowing into this ecosystem. But I think one of the bigger things is you actually have an entrepreneurial base right now who is effectively raising their hand and saying, "I'm going to build in this ecosystem." That's incredibly important not just for our nation, but also you can build really valuable companies in. So, I think it's just this conglomeration of a of geopolitical factors, of capital markets, and then entrepreneurs that are kind of all just coming together. And you know, I I think it's a really interesting time to be building. It's a good time for us to be investing. When we looked at 80/50 this year, we thought about you know, kind of where we're at in the in history of American dynamism. And we're still early, but I think one theme that has evolved is like you really need to start looking at American dynamism companies as a totality from end to end, from the input that comes out of the ground to the factory that makes the thing to the end system. So, that's how we set up 80/50 this year to think through those three lenses. Each one of those pillars is uniquely important to, you know, the end product or the end system. But in the end, like I I I don't think people think that way. And a lot of the companies that are addressing, you know, things in our portfolio have thought, you know, from a inputs perspective, from a factories perspective, and now from a systems perspective.军民两用与技术溢出效应
看完了这份名单后，有人可能会形成一种观点：“好吧，我们建立这套工业基础是为了国防，比如造导弹和无人机；但它现在实际上成为了一股顺风，正在帮助美国的许多不同行业。”这里面包括能源、机器人、人工智能。你们能否谈谈所有这些事物是如何结合在一起的？
英文原文
>> So, one theory that a person could develop after looking at the list is, "Okay, we built out this industrial base for, you know, defense, like building missiles and drones, um but it's actually a tailwind now that's helping a lot of different industries in America." So, there's energy, there's robotics, there's AI. Can you kind of talk about how all of these things fit together?是的，这很有意思，因为如果你回顾历史——哪怕是70、80、甚至将近100年前——观察我们在美国是如何开发技术的，很多时候它高度源于政府。如果你看我们最初是如何进入太空的，我们是如何开发互联网的，我们是如何开发核能的，那都是政府在说：“我们要为了政府的目的来做这件事。”随后，该技术的长尾效应释放了巨大价值，比如互联网的诞生，比如能源在全世界的普及。
现在的不同之处在于，在某种程度上，民营产业和私人资本正在站出来说，我们要成为推动某项事物发展的动力。因此，正如你所说，虽然这些市场中的许多业务是为了服务联邦政府、以某种方式服务国防部，但这些事情的美妙之处在于，当你建立起工业基础时——无论是供应链下游还是最终系统本身——它们天生就具备多种应用场景。
在投资领域大家经常谈论“军民两用”（dual use）这个词。从某种程度上讲，我认为同时关注太多事情对初创企业来说并不是好事，但对于如今建造的任何工厂、任何新式工厂（neo-factory）、任何能源生产设施，以及我们所接触的地底矿产和原材料而言，它完全是真的。它不仅会进入防御系统，还会进入我叔叔的汽车，以某种形式进入我孩子未来的玩具里。因此，我认为最前端的利刃可能是针对政府的，但从长远来看，这些系统最终将应用到我们今天乘坐的 Waymo 或其他任何日常事物中。
英文原文
>> Yeah, I mean I I it's funny because if you look back in history, I mean even, you know, 70, 80, almost 100 years ago, if you look at how we've developed technology in America, a lot of times it's very much been from the government. If you look at how we, you know, went to space for the first time, if you look at how we developed the internet, um how we developed nuclear energy, it was the government saying, "We are going to do this for the purpose of the government." And then the long tail of that technology was super valuable for, you know, you name it, the internet being created, you know, energy being proliferated, you know, across the world. Um what's different now to some extent is now private industry as well as private capital is saying, you know, we're actually going to be the impetus that that develops something. And so, to your point, um, you know, the many of these markets is to serve the federal government, to serve the Department of War in some way, but the beauty about these things is when you build, you know, an industrial base either, you know, down the supply chain or end systems itself, those inherently have many use cases. I mean, the the term dual use is talked about a lot in in investing and, you know, to some extent like, uh, I I think it's a little bit of a folly like focusing on too many things at once is not good for a startup, but it is 100% true of what's happening with any factory that's being built today, any neo-factory being built, uh, any any uh, energy production, anything we we we touch and kind of minerals and materials in the ground, it's not just going into a defense system. It's going to go into my uncle's car. It's going to go into like my kids' future, you know, toy that they have in some way, shape or form. So, I I I do think it is a, uh, you know, uh, maybe the tip of the spear is focused on the government, but I think the long run to your point, like, what's happening is these systems will be used, you know, in the waymo that we took today or or anything else.我觉得看中国的 DJI（大疆）是一个很好的例子。
英文原文
>> I think a good a good example of this to to look at is actually DJI in China.是的。
英文原文
>> Yeah.它在其生命周期和发展历程中经历了多个阶段。它最初从生产消费级无人机起步，在2010年代末认识到在公共安全和国防领域存在巨大的无人机市场。于是，它建立起了真正针对国防的大规模无人机生产业务。如今，DJI 背后的人马成为了全球最大的机器人制造者，因为无人机电机与机器人执行器（actuator）非常相似，而执行器正是制造机器人最困难的部件。
所以你看到，这家公司在发展出大型国防业务（其本身源自消费级业务）的过程中，如今成为了全球在如何为下一代物理 AI（无论是消费级还是工业级）构建和生产硬件方面领先的专家。
因此，我认为在军事用例与非军事用例之间的这种技术转移与工艺知识（process knowledge）转移至关重要，而且历来如此。能由联邦政府作为某种补贴方来帮助摸索出这种工艺知识和新技术，是非常棒的。此外，我认为我们在美国拥有的一份极其宝贵的财富就是美国消费者的挑剔眼光。我们对性能更强、成本更低的要求，会比政府推动得更加极致。因此，工业基础中的这种共生关系实际上非常关键。我们在能源领域切实体会到了这一点，在电子领域体会到了这一点，在整个工业技术栈中都体会到了这一点。
英文原文
>> Um, which start which has gone through, you know, multiple arcs of of of its lifetime and its journey. You know, started out building consumer drones and recognized over the late 2010s that there was a large market for drones in um, both public safety and national defense. And so, built out, you know, a real high-scale drone production business for defense. And now the company behind the folks behind DJI are now the largest producers of robots in the world because what is very similar to a drone motor is a robot actuator, which is the hardest part of building a robot. So, you have this company that over the course of growing a large defense business that itself spun out of a consumer business is now, you know, the world's leading expert on how to build and produce hardware for kind of the next wave of physical AI, both consumer and uh, industrial. And so I think, you know, this technology transfer and process knowledge transfer between military use cases and non-military use cases is really important and has always been how it works. And it's great to have the federal government be sort of a subsidizer for figuring out this process knowledge and figuring out the new technology. And then, you know, I think like our world's greatest gift in the United States is the discernment of the American consumer. Like, we are going to push things to be more capable and cheaper than the government ever will. So, that symbiotic relationship in the industrial base is actually really important. And we're certainly seeing that on the energy side. We're seeing that on the electronic side. We're seeing that, you know, across the entire sort of industrial stack.在某种程度上，我认为这不是一个特别复杂的论题，但重新申明这一点很重要：那就是当你制造任何品类的第一代产品时，它都极其昂贵。无论是制造定制的军事系统还是消费产品……
英文原文
>> And and and to some extent, I I I I don't think this is a super complex, you know, topic, but it's important to kind of restate, which is when you build the first of a kind of anything, it's quite expensive. Like, when you were building a bespoke, you know, what whether it's a military system or a consumer product.从0到100，成本会非常高。
英文原文
>> Zero to 100, it's going to cost a lot.成本会非常高。在某种程度上，我们可能稍后会谈到垂直整合或利用现有的供应链基础。而当下正在发生的绝妙之处在于，我们的联邦政府和国防部门在表态：首先，我们要积极尝试重建部分工业基础。通过这样做，他们实际上从一开始就改变了这些公司的单位经济效益决策。
因此，与其说生产100件产品，你可以说：“好吧，也许就生产100件，但我们愿意支付消费市场或商业市场所不愿承担的成本。”突然之间，这就意味着更多的机器可以进驻工厂，更多的资本支出由政府在起步阶段帮助分担。随之而来的便是：实体硬件不仅在财务上变得可行，而且其规模也真正能够触达普通消费者。认清这一点非常重要，而这正是当下正在发生的事实。
英文原文
>> It's going to cost a lot. And and to some extent, like, you you know, we'll get into this a bit a bit later, I bet. But, you know, we talk about vertical integrating or using the supply, you know, chain base that you have. The beautiful thing about what's happening right now is we have a federal government and an Department of War is saying, you know, number one, we're going to we're going to try to actively rebuild some of this this industrial base. And by doing that, they're actually changing that unit economic decision from the start for these companies. So, you know, again, it's instead of building 100 things, you can say, "Okay, maybe build 100, but we're willing to pay a cost that the consumer or the commercial market wouldn't pay." And all of a sudden, then, you know, that means more machines, you can put your factory, more CAPEX that you know, the government is helping you pay at the start. And then that leads to things that are physical, you know, both like financially viable, but also like, you know, at a scale that actually can touch the consumer. So, I just it's important to to to identify that, and that is definitely happening right now.比如如果你在美国建造一个新的 PCB（印制电路板）制造厂，那是一项相当昂贵的操作，那些机器设备都价值不菲。如果你能把国防买家作为第一买家，来帮助支付或补贴很大一部分资本支出投资，那就太棒了，因为你知道还有什么东西需要 PCB 板吗？机器人。你知道还有什么需要 PCB 板吗？助听器。因此，能够将部分资本支出分摊给国防工业基础，我认为在我们重建美国工业产能的过程中将是非常强大的助力。
英文原文
>> like if you're building a new PCB fab in the United States, like that's a pretty expensive operation. Those are pretty expensive machinery pieces of machinery. Um and if you have a defense buyer as the first buyer to help you kind of pay for or subsidize a lot of that CapEx investment, that's great because you know what else has PCB boards? Robots. You know what else has PCB boards? Hearing aids. Um and so the ability to to kind of pass on some of that CapEx to the defense industrial base, I think is uh will be really powerful as we as we rebuild kind of industrial capacity in the United States.初创企业的制造降本：垂直整合与第一性原理
那么，你们具体看到初创公司在采取哪些措施来压低成本并加快行动速度？
英文原文
>> So what specifically are you seeing startups do to drive down costs and move faster?是的。我认为就像很多事情一样，我们可以在埃隆（马斯克）身上找到很多答案。说当今真正建立起规模化制造业务的现代公司大概只有 SpaceX 和特斯拉，这并不算夸张。如果你观察埃隆和他的团队是如何建立这些业务的，其中一个特点就是高度的垂直整合。
听着，我的理念是你不应该把所有东西都垂直整合。如果是在建造一个像导弹那样极其精密复杂的独特系统，你几乎不得不这样做，因为你必须控制其精细度和成本。
英文原文
>> Yeah. Um I mean I I think like many things we can look to Elon for a lot of answers here. I mean it's not a crazy statement to say really the few modern-day companies that have built anything at scale are probably SpaceX and Tesla. Um and if you look at how Elon and and his team have built those businesses, it's been one very vertically integrated. Uh and and look, like I take the the ideology that you shouldn't vertically integrate everything. I mean again, if you're building a super exquisite system like a missile that is, you know, doing something very unique, you kind of have to because you have to, you know, control the exquisiteness. You have to control the cost.可是，SpaceX 和特斯拉当时做的是开创性的产品。在美国根本不存在支持他们的工业基础，所以他们必须自己去造。我认为只要存在优质的供应商，你就应该利用……
英文原文
>> Well, well, I mean SpaceX and Tesla were doing first of their kind. Like there wasn't there didn't exist industrial base in the US to support them. And so they had to build it themselves. I think where there are high-quality suppliers, like you should use当然。
英文原文
>> >> For sure.供应商。
英文原文
>> suppliers.是的。不过我认为这里的经验教训是：第一，如果你没有一个可以快速、可靠依赖的工业基础，你就必须自己干，而这本质上是一段艰难的旅程，做起来非常困难。
这种做法意味着：“好吧，我要专注于最终系统，专注于构建最具成本效益、最有效的系统。顺便说一句，我还得自己去解决滚珠轴承的问题，还得去搞清楚电磁阀怎么做……”这需要做的事情太多了。在特斯拉和 SpaceX 的案例中，我认为汽车行业稍有不同，因为原先就有产业基础，但当时并不存在电池供应链，埃隆必须重新创造一套。
英文原文
>> Yeah. Yeah, I mean again, I I I I think the the the learning though is number one, if you don't have an industrial base that you can rely on, you know, quickly, reliably, you know, etc., then you have to do it and inherently that is a hard journey. Like that that's really hard to do. This concept of saying, "Okay, I'm going to focus on the end system. I'm going to focus on, you know, building the most, you know, cost-effective, you know, effective system that I can. And oh by the way, I got to go figure out the ball bearing. I got to go figure out the solenoid valve. I got like that that's a lot to do." And in the case of, you know, Tesla and SpaceX, I would argue the the auto industry was a little bit different because there was a but there wasn't there wasn't a battery supply chain. They had to, you know, Elon had to recreate that.整个电力电子系统，整个动力总成，他们都必须根据70年代发表的、尘封了40年的论文完全从零开始构建。
英文原文
>> The whole the whole power electronics, the the whole drivetrain, you know, they had to really build completely from scratch. Uh based off papers that were published in the '70s that, you know, had been collecting dust for for 40 years.在 AD 投资组合的公司中，有收购了铜矿并在革新行业的 Mariana Minerals。他们会是这方面的一个好例子吗？
英文原文
>> Um in terms of uh companies that we talk about in the AD portfolio, there's Mariana minerals which bought a copper mine and is kind of reinventing things. And And would they be a good example to to talk about here?我认为他们意识到采矿业的现有玩家采纳技术的速度不够快，根本无法带来实质改变或推动质的突破。他们还意识到，自己希望真正掌控整条价值链，从而能够真正言出必行，并捕获他们带来的新技术所创造的终端价值。
所以，从收购资产、开发资产、开采资产、运营资产，到自行提炼多种不同的矿物原料，他们全流程包揽。然后他们向市场销售最终的大宗商品，并且倾力投入。我想指出的另一个趋势是：在这些领域进行创业的创始人和企业家们，正将人工智能和软件作为其构建过程中极其庞大的核心组成部分。
英文原文
>> I think that they they recognized that um the you know, there the existing players in the mining industry just were not going to pick pick up technology fast enough uh for it to really make a difference and really move the needle. That And they also recognized that they wanted to actually own the entire value chain to be able to really put their money where their mouth was um and capture the end value of the new technology they were bringing. So, yeah, they do everything from you know, acquiring the asset, developing the asset, mining the asset, operating the asset, and refining the material themselves across multiple different uh multiple different minerals. And then they sell a final commodity product in the market um and have really leaned in. That's another trend I'd point to is how much founders and entrepreneurs building in these spaces are leaning into AI and software as a huge huge component um of their build.是的。我认为在物理世界中应用软件和 AI，其形态与在法律、客户服务或如今 AI 爆发的其他门类中截然不同。但正如 Aaron 所指出的，很多时候你必须拥有该资产，才能真正改变它。并非每一次都如此，但在物理世界中，通常“眼见才为实”。而当你是一个纯数字 AI 产品时，你可以直接看代码，它非常容易迁移和理解。Mariana 在这个铜矿上的所作所为在很多方面都令人印象深刻。他们不仅是在说“我们要更擅长提取铜”，而是在重新思考整套流程。
英文原文
>> Yeah, I mean, I I think when you look at the physical world, applying software and AI will look different than what has happened in, say, legal or customer service or any other category where you see AI taking off in a in a crazy way today. But But to Aaron's point, like many times that you have to do is you have to own the asset in order really to change that asset. Not every time, but a lot of times, you know, kind of showing is believing in the physical world. Whereas, you know, when you when you're purely a digital AI product, you can kind of just see it and it's very easily transferable and kind of understanding. You know, what Mariana is doing with this copper mine is is really impressive in a lot of ways. It's not just saying, "Hey, we're going to be better at extracting copper." It's It's rethinking everything.涵盖你如何规划、运营、开采和提炼原材料的整个端到端过程。很酷的是，一旦你端到端拥有了这个过程，并在该旅程的每个阶段都使用软件，你就能真正捕获这些数据，进而形成正向反馈。
英文原文
>> The entire end-to-end process of how you plan, operate, mine, and refine materials. And you know, what's cool is once you once you own that process end to end and are using software at every stage of that journey, you actually capture that data and then it feeds back.这是一个关键点。不仅是 Mariana，如果你看像 Hadrian 这样的另一家企业，它也是一个完美的例子：既展示了如何利用软件，更重要的是，它证明了并非靠单一的灵丹妙药就能让工厂或矿山瞬间变得完美，它实际上涉及15到20个不同的环节。
看一下 Chris 在 Hadrian 的做法：从前端对零部件进行报价和接单，到零部件的实际物理制造，再到如何检验、如何转运——工厂内部存在所有这些不同的中间步骤。
当你要么像 Chris 建立工厂那样从零起步，要么像 Mariana 那样全面接管并拥有资产时，绝妙之处就在于你可以从第一性原理的视角审视每一个节点，并拷问：“过去100年一直沿用的这套流程，真的合理吗？”这正是目前物理世界各层级都在发生的变化。不仅是矿山，不仅是工厂，它以多种形式存在。
我个人的看法是——我们在许多被投公司身上也看到了这一点——人工智能将成为物理世界中极其强大的工具，但现实是 AI 目前还不会拧扳手。在未来的某个时刻它会具备这种能力，但我们现在离那一步还很遥远。我们或许可以讨论我们在物理世界中看到的机器人模型与自主性，我们正在接近，但我认为细微差别在于：入选这份名单的许多公司（无论是否在我们的投资组合中）都明白，物理世界并不是拿出一个闪亮的 AI 灵丹妙药就能解决的。它需要对实际物理流程的深度理解，理解如何去操控流程，如何改变世界上正在发生的物理现实。具体表现形式各不相同。
英文原文
>> And this is this is an important point. I mean, this is not just Mariana, but if you look at another business like Hadrian, I mean, this is a perfect example of how one you can utilize software, you know, but but more importantly, um it's not one silver bullet that all of a sudden makes a factory or a mine perfect. It's actually 15 or 20 different things. And when you look at what Chris has done at Hadrian, you know, yes, it's kind of upfront what it takes to like quote and even take an order of a part. It's you know, it is the actual physical, you know, making of the part. It's how you inspect it and transfer it and and you know, there's there's all these different interim steps that exist within a factory. And the beautiful thing when you kind of either start from a you know, a fresh slate like Chris has in building his factories or in Mariana's case when you kind of own the thing and take it over, you can look at every single node from a first principles perspective and say "Hey, was this process that's been done the last 100 years the right process?" And that's what's happening across every layer of the physical world right now. It's not just mines, it's not just factories. I mean, again, it exists in many different permutations. And and you know, my personal belief and we see this in a lot of our portfolio companies is look, AI will be a phenomenal tool that can be used in the physical world. The reality is AI cannot turn a wrench yet. It will at some point, but we're we're we're far off that, you know, again, we can maybe have a discussion about the you know, robotic models and autonomy that that that we see in the physical world. We're getting we're getting closer. I just think the the nuance here and and the portfolio companies, many that are on this list or or many many non-portfolio companies on this list, that they understand that um look, the the physical world is not about just putting a silver bullet forward like I said, that some you know, shiny AI product. It's it's it's deep understanding of of what a process looks like, you know, physically how to like, you know, manipulate the the process or how to you know, you know, change something that's happening in the world. It's just going to look different based off.或许可以通过一个具体例子来展开说明：比如“少品种大批量”（low-mix high-volume）与“多品种小批量”（high-mix low-volume）制造，以及 AI 如何改变其中的游戏规则。在历史上，如果你投入巨资建立一条高度自动化的产线，你必须大规模生产同一种单一产品。
英文原文
>> Well, maybe like a a specific example or to talk through is like um like low mix high volume versus high mix low volume and how how AI can kind of change change the game there. So, you know, historically like if you're spending a lot and setting up a line with a lot of automation, you really need to produce be producing like a lot of one single thing.嗯。
英文原文
>> >> Mhm.只有那样你才能降低成本，从而合理化投资一条高度定制化制造产线的成本。在美国，我们做很多小批量多品种的制造，这种制造很难自动化，因为每次调整产线都非常昂贵。
但我们在投资组合中看到的是，制造技工本身具备直觉，如今又掌握了软件工具，能够改变在产线上生产小批量多品种产品的经济模型。你现在可以有一位制造技工——这人没有大学文凭，也不一定学过软件工程——凭借自己对制造工艺的深刻理解以及在物理世界中的操作手艺，利用这些工具即时对产线进行重新编程与调整。
过去重新调整产线需要致电系统集成商，耗时3个月并花费数十万美元；而现在，制造工程师可以使用 Claude 在20分钟内完成重新配置。这在我们看到的该领域的许多公司中，确实是一场游戏规则的改变。
英文原文
>> Um and that's how you get the cost down and that's how you justify the cost of invest investing in, you know, a pretty bespoke manufacturing line. Um in the US we do a lot of low mix high volume manufacturing, which is very hard to automate cuz it's very expensive when you have to change the line all the time. Um but what we're seeing across our portfolio is that uh manufacturing technicians themselves are have this have the intuition and now have the software tools to be able to to to change the economics of what it looks like to produce low volume high mix on the line. So, you can have, you know, a manufacturing technician. This is not someone with a college degree. This is not someone maybe they are but like not necessarily who's like studied software engineering is now able to use these tools to reprogram and reconfigure their manufacturing lines on the fly using the fact that they understand the manufacturing process and they know how to do what they're doing in the physical world. They now suddenly have all these tools so they can you know, you can retool a line instead of having to call a system system integrator, you know, and it takes 3 months and hundreds of thousands of dollars to kind of reconfigure a line for a new setup. You can have a manufacturing engineer use Claude and do that in, you know, 20 minutes. Um and so that's been a real game changer across lots of companies that we've seen seen in this space.这一点之所以重要，是因为回看我们今年对 AD 50 的梳理，它涵盖了三个类别。很多时候大家（至少我和行业里的很多人）主要关注终端系统公司。确实有很多非常引人注目的系统公司，Anduril、Saronic、Castille……制造优秀终端系统的公司名单很长。
但问题在于，如果你无法对设计和原型进行快速迭代，你不仅做不出差异化、更优越的终端系统，而且研发迭代速度也会慢下来。导致的结果是，当你最终敲定一枚量产级别的导弹或飞机时，你突然不得不回头去重构并搭建所有子系统以满足量产规模。相反，如果你拥有一条适应性更强、更易调谐的生产线，首先你能更快制造出原型，其次你能够对各个组件进行布局配置，使其更快进入规模化量产阶段。
英文原文
>> And and why that's important is, you know, when you look back at at how we've articulated AD20 this year, uh you know, it's it's you know, kind of three categories. And a lot of times what we focus on, at least you know, I have and and many people in the in in the sector focused on is just the systems companies. And look, there's a lot of really interesting systems companies. I mean, Anduril, Saronic, Castille, I mean, you know, the list goes on and on of who's building really good end systems. But the problem is is if you can't, you know, uh iterate on that on the design and iterate on that prototype, you don't not only not get them an end system that is like, you know, different, better, but you also just move at a slower pace. So, then what happens is by the time you finally fix a production level, you know, missile or plane or kind of whatever, then all of a sudden then you got to, you know, go back and rejigger and build up all these kind of, you know, subsystems in order to meet the scale. But, if you have, you know, a more transferable line, a more adjustable line, number one, you can also build the prototype faster, but then two, you can then, you know, set up each one of these different components in a way where it actually can get to rate production quicker.是的，你从一开始就在面向制造进行设计（Design for Manufacturing）。
英文原文
>> Yeah, you're you're you're designing for you're designing for manufacturer from the outset.完全正确。这又让我回想起特斯拉和 SpaceX 的经验。在很多方面，他们做出这些选择是因为别无他法，但归根结底，“面向制造而设计”的理念如今已深深根植于所有这些系统公司之中。
在某种程度上，我们现在正处于目睹它们量产的时代。去看看 Anduril 在俄亥俄州以及现在在东海岸巴尔的摩建造的基地；去看看 Saronic 建造的舰艇工厂。这些都是体量极其庞大的设施，在不久的将来，它们将生产出成千、上万、乃至数十万套系统。美国已经很久没有做到这种程度了。
英文原文
>> Exactly. Exactly. And that that is again, I I keep going back to learnings from, you know, Tesla and SpaceX. And a lot of ways they they they had to make those choice cuz they didn't have any other opportunity, but in the end it's actually just that mantra of design for manufacturing that now exists within all these systems companies. Um, and to some extent like we are now in the age of now seeing them produce. I mean, again, like go look at what Anduril's built in, you know, in in Ohio and and now on the East Coast in Baltimore. You know, go look at what, you know, Saronic has built with the shippable. I mean, these are massive, huge facilities that are at some point, you know, in a very soon soon timeline going to be producing thousands, tens of thousands, hopefully hundreds of thousands of systems. We haven't done that in America in a long time.是的，这不再是纸面上的理论推演，而是正在现实世界中发生，真真切切的硬件正在从产线下线。
英文原文
>> Yeah, this is no longer an on paper theoretical exercise. Uh, this is happening in in in the real world and and real stuff is coming off the lines.国防采购变革与风险资本的前置注入
我觉得 AD 创始人的一个特别之处在于，他们会把任何问题都变成一个“埃隆级别规模”的问题。我很想听听这种思路是如何应用到我们所讨论的各个不同行业之中的。
英文原文
>> Something that I think is like special about 80 founders is they make any problem an Elon sized problem. Um, and and I'd love to I'd love to hear sort of that applied to the different industries that we're talking about here.是的，我认为单看国防领域，历史上它一直是按照你认为政府所需去直接构建产品最困难的领域之一。因为不幸的是——我自己曾在军队服役，对此深有体会——购买者并非最终使用者，而为购买者拨款的人又完全脱离实际。决策者或相关群体彼此割裂脱节。
在过去，我们并没有新一代主承包商（neo-primes）或 AD 企业来提供服务。当时的情况是，传统主承包商只会坐在那里听令：“告诉我你想要什么，等把钱拨给我之后我再去研发。”随之而来的老问题就是：你得到了一套技术并不先进的系统，一套针对十年前需求开发的系统。最终，一线士兵拿到的东西对他们来说其实并没有多大价值。
现在不同了——回到“用埃隆的思维思考问题”——你可以问：“军方到底真正需要什么？”美妙之处在于，风险投资、我们在“美国活力”基金所做的事、以及资本市场的其他参与者都在表态：“我们愿意提前提供资金，你们可以在政府下达‘按这个规格制造’的指令之前，就把东西提前做出来。”
这样带来的结果是：士兵获得了更好的产品，真正从根本上改变了战场格局，有助于威慑、安全与保障。更重要的是，系统的研发周期真正契合了市场需求和当代技术的可能水平。
这是一种根本性的转变：不再是干坐着等待政府告诉你需要什么，而是政府释放信号，你捕捉到信号，利用民间资本提前进行研发制造。这在国防历史上是从未发生过的。
比如 Castilleja 正在制造一款高超音速导弹，它追求的不是过度繁琐的精巧设计，但要把导弹造得飞得那么快而且可靠，难度极高。如今政府已经向他们提供了合同，进场采购导弹。但如果你看这家公司过去三年的历程，全靠民间风险投资，全靠创业者承担风险提前把产品研发出来。
如果你在国防领域一次又一次看到这种模式，你就会得到更好的产品，新式主承包商和新公司将从根本上开始占据大量市场份额。但这并不局限于国防。Aaron 在能源领域也看到了同样的趋势。我们目前正在重写整个能源电网。Aaron 比我更清楚，我们现在才刚刚站在一码线的位置，才刚刚启动这一进程。
英文原文
>> Yeah, I mean, I think when you look at defense specifically, this is actually been one of the most historically hard, you know, sectors to just build the thing that you think the government needs because unfortunately, and again, you know, I I I experienced this in my past, you know, when I served in the army, you know, the buyer is not the user and the and the appropriator of the dollars for the buyer is completely removed. So, you have all these like disjointed decision makers or groups that matter. And so, what happens is, you know, companies, you know, back then we didn't really have neo primes or AD companies to serve, but what you had is you had primes who would just sit there and listen, like, "Tell me what you want. I'll develop the thing after you give me the money." And, you know, the the age-old problem is you get a system that's like actually not, you know, technology forward. You get a system that was developed for 10 years ago. And then, you know, the end soldier gets something that actually is not super valuable to them. What's different now, back to the like, you know, you can think through an Elon problem now, is you can say, "Okay, what does the military actually need?" And and the beautiful thing is, you know, venture capital and what we do at American Dynamism, but also, you know, the the rest of the capital markets are saying, "We will actually fund that in advance and you can build in advance of the government saying, 'Here's the thing for you to build.'" And and and the outcome of that is the soldier gets a better product, gets something that actually fundamentally changes the battlefield and, you know, helps with deterrence or security or safety. Uh and then, more importantly, you get a time frame of a of a type of system that is actually built, you know, you know, aligned with the requirement of the market and what technology can do today. So, it's just it it's it's a fundamentally different way of like instead of sitting and waiting for the government to tell you what they want, you the government signals and you see it and you build in advance by using private capital. And that just has not happened in the history of defense. So, you can build, you know, like Castilleja is building a a hypersonic missile that does a, you know, not a super exquisite thing, but it's really hard to build a missile that goes that fast and is reliable. And, you know, the government, you know, now has given them contracts and kind of, you know, showed up and and and bought missiles. But, if you go look at the last 3 years of that business, I mean, it was private venture capital. It was, you know, entrepreneurs like taking the risk and building the thing in advance. I think if you see that again and again in defense, you're just going to get better products and fundamentally like you know, you'll have the neo primes and the new companies start to take a lot of that market share. But, it's not just a defense thing. I mean, Aaron sees it in energy, as well. I mean, we're rewriting our entire energy grid right now. And we're again, like Aaron would know better than I would, but like we are in on the one yard line. We are just starting that process.我认为另一部分因素稍微偏无形一些，但这些确实是极难建立的公司，是极其困难的待解难题。
我和 Mariana Minerals 的 CEO Turner 交流时，为了建立公司，他经常飞往全球各个偏远荒僻的地方。他待在没有手机信号、没有电力的地方……
英文原文
>> I I think, you know, another part of it is >> [clears throat] >> is a little a little more intangible, but like these are really hard companies to build. These are really, really hard problems to solve. Um you know, when I talk to Turner, who's the CEO of Mariana Minerals, and you know, he's flying all he's flying to the middle of nowhere places all over the world to build his company. He's like out where there's no cell phone signal, where there's no electricity.是的。
英文原文
>> >> Yeah.接触泥土，连续数周乃至数月远离家人。这一切必须值得。你是在制造实体硬件，而不是坐在办公桌前的电脑前。你在广阔的世界里。听起来很酷、很浪漫，但当你实际去做时，那是极度粗粝艰难的。旅途非常劳顿。你接触的人并非像其他创业公司那样与你处在同等时间节奏和文化语境中，你要打电话给供应商，他们是一群非常强硬、谈判极具挑战、文化背景大相径庭的人。
如果你要让自己去承受这一切，那最好它是极其有价值的。因此，人们真正被这些庞大而艰巨的问题所吸引，因为我们看到在这个领域创业的都是真正具有使命感的创始人。即便现在行业升温、资本变多、这件事变得光鲜起来，其过程依然是残酷的。
英文原文
>> You know, touching dirt, you know, spending like weeks and months away from his family. Um like it has to be worth it. You're building a physical thing. You're not sitting at a desk on your computer. You're out in the world. It sounds kind of sexy and romantic, but when you're actually doing it, like it's rough. The travel is really hard. The people you're engaging with, you know, you're not talking to you're calling up your suppliers. These are not like other startups who operate in the same kind of time scale and culture as you. These are like really tough people to negotiate with and work with who, you know, have a very different culture. And if you're going to be putting yourself through that, like it better be damn worth it. Um and so, I think people people really gravitate towards these problems that feel huge and enormous, because they're you know, these are real missionary founders that we see building in the space. Even as even as it's kind of heated up and there's more capital and it's gotten cool, um it's still brutal.从国家情怀到商业价值：重构全球硬件格局
我认为过去几年“美国活力”领域发生的最大转变在于：我们过去一直深知，这一领域的企业对美国的国家支柱至关重要。无论是国防系统、能源，还是制造应用于各处的零部件，这些都极其重要，关系到我们的安全与生活方式。
但最大的转变在于：这些公司不再仅仅是“对我们最重要”，现在它们还能成为“最有价值”的公司。这是一个巨大的分水岭。这不仅仅是去解决安全防御问题，而是在解决国家安全问题的同时，它们能够成长为世界上规模最大的企业之一。
这就是技术给这些传统产业带来的改变。采矿业一直是一个庞大的行业，国防、能源一直都是庞大产业……
英文原文
>> I I think the biggest thing that has changed in American dynamism land in the last few years is we always knew that the companies being built in this category were really important to the fabric of America. I mean, again, like when we talk about defense systems, when we talk about energy, I mean, when we talk about building, you you widgets that go into everything in the like that stuff's really important. Like it affects our safety, it affects how we live our life. But the biggest change is those companies weren't just the most important thing to us. Now they can be the most valuable companies. And that's like a big distinction that that has happened, which is, you know, it's not just like, you know, solving a problem for our safety or security, it's solving a problem for our safety and security. And oh, by the way, those can be some of the largest companies that exist in the world. And and that's what technology has changed in these industries. I mean, mining has always been a big big industry. Defense has always been energy.过去，对于野心勃勃的聪明年轻人来说，投身这些领域在经济回报上并不划算。但像 Palantir、Anduril、SpaceX 这样的公司证明了，深耕这些领域同样可以打造出体量巨大的商业帝国。如果看目前全球市值最高的10家公司，其中大多数都是硬件公司，都在制造实体产品。我们仿佛经历了一个完整的轮回。因此，我们这一代中最具抱负的创始人愿意迎难而上，奔赴这些硬核难题，因为他们知道这绝对值得。
英文原文
>> it hasn't been economically worth it for a young smart person, you know, who has a lot of ambition to go after these categories. But I think companies like Palantir, Anduril, SpaceX have proved that you can build a really big business operating in in these categories. And if you I mean, if you look at the, you know, the top 10 most valuable companies in the world like that right now, like the majority of them are hardware companies. They're building a physical product. Um you know, we we've kind of come full circle in the so you get the most ambitious founders of our generation who you know, who want to run towards that hard problem and know it's going to be worth it.这些产业的奇妙之处在于，像采矿领域的力拓集团（Rio Tinto）已经存在了很久，波音也存在了很久。它们是优秀的公司，打造着优秀的产品。但当你首先采取第一性原理的技术视角去思考到底需要构建什么样大胆的技术，其次拥有一批像入选 AD 50 榜单的创业者……
英文原文
>> And and and the beautiful thing about many of these industries like mining or you know, Rio Tinto has been around for a long time. I mean, Boeing's been around for like you know, good companies that are building good products. But I think when you take this, you know, first of all, like a first principles technology approach about like what the audacious thing that needs to be built is. And then two, you get entrepreneurs like these these folks that that are on this this 80 50 list.“好啊，我要去重构美国的能源电网，听起来挺有意思的。”
英文原文
>> >> yeah, I'm going to rebuild the American energy grid. That sounds That sounds fun.这种雄心在50年前不存在，甚至5年前都不存在。如今，美国最聪明、最优秀的人才第一次集体投身于这个领域。更重要的是，正如 Aaron 所说，机遇就在那里。你看到了重新定义太空发射、重新定义军事系统、重新定义我们所关注的“美国活力”所有领域的企业典范。
这令人心潮澎湃。作为一个曾经从军的人，你总会觉得自己所做的事超越了个体本身。资本市场的存在当然是为了赚钱，我们不是慈善机构，这是一个资本主义社会；但归根结底，AD 50 榜单上的很多公司所做的事情，不仅体量庞大、极具商业价值，而且对美国的根基内在极其重要，这太令人兴奋了。
英文原文
>> And you just that that I that didn't exist 50 years ago. That didn't exist five years ago. I mean, it is something that is fundamentally, you know, our America's, you know, best and brightest are building towards this category for the first time. And and then importantly, like Aaron said, like the opportunity is there. You see these examples of these companies that have redefined space launch, that have redefined, you know, kind of military systems, that redefined, you know, all all these these categories of American dynamism that we care about. Um and yeah, I I think it's exciting. I mean, uh you know, as as again, as someone who served in the military, you always think of, you know, like what you do is something greater than yourself. I mean look like the capital markets exist to you know make money like it's we're not we're not a charity. This is a capitalist society but in the end a lot of the companies on this 80/50 list are doing something that is both going to be large and valuable but also going to be really inherently important to the fabric of America and that's that's pretty exciting.实地探访一线：从毛坯厂房到满负荷运转
实地参观这些工厂——比如制造厂、矿场或者无人机制造商的现场——是什么样的体验？
英文原文
>> What's it what's it like to to visit one of these sites like a manufacturing site or a mining site or you know drone manufacturers those kinds of sites like我和 Connor 拥有有史以来最好的工作。我现在确实买了一双钢头防护靴，因为陪同被投公司进行实地考察的次数太多了，他们总是要求：“对，你必须穿钢头靴入场。”
英文原文
>> I mean Connor and I have the best job of all time. I did have to I I did I do own steel toe boots now because the number of the number of site visits I've been to with portfolio companies where you where they're like yeah you got to show up in steel [laughter] toe boots. Um yeah.老实说，这里面并非全都很酷炫。这些地方往往极其偏远、交通不便。归根结底，我们面对的是需要翻动泥土的大型实体工程。我以前在部队时，有一位高级军官常对我说：“物理世界并不在乎你，所以在物理世界里必须格外小心。”现场需要搬运成吨的泥土，Hadrian 建设的那些超大型工厂体量惊人，蔚为壮观。
我最喜欢的细节之一是——可能在某些偏远矿山看不到，但多数地方都有——这些公司之间仿佛有一场心照不宣的暗中较量：看谁在自己的工地上挂的美国国旗更大。我其实不确定目前谁保持着纪录，但我上次在 Hadrian 看到的国旗确实非常大。
英文原文
>> I mean it's not all sexy to be honest. I mean again these are these are locations that are you know a lot of times hard to get to in the middle of nowhere and in the end like we're talking about real physical things that require you know earth moving. I got I used to have in my time in the military I used to have this this kind of senior officer who would always tell me like the physical world doesn't care about you so just be careful in the physical world. Like you know these are you know moving you know tons of dirt and you know massive you know these factories being built out you know Hadrian or or what Amica will do. I mean these things are huge and and it's impressive. You know my one of my favorite things is maybe you don't see this at the remote sites. Maybe you do but it's this kind of running competition between these companies who can have the bigger American flag at their site. I actually don't know who currently holds that today. I mean Hadrian's is pretty big last time I saw it.Valor 的国旗也非常大。
英文原文
>> >> Valor's is pretty big.也很大？那就对了。这种景象非常棒。大家怀揣着一种超越产品本身或单纯商业利益的情怀与热忱，这为很多团队注入了强烈的使命感。当你走进 Mariana，走进 Hadrian，走进 Castilleja，你碰到的每个人都对正在做的事情充满激情。这能带来极好的成果。在物理世界里做极难的事情，如果有团队愿意为了解决问题不惜赴汤蹈火（有时甚至真的是字面意义上的硬闯），你就能取得极其大胆而出色的成果。
英文原文
>> big too? Okay good. Yeah yeah yeah. And like again I mean that's that's awesome. Like the fact that you have that type of like one passion for for something greater than just the the product or the economic opportunity that you're building. I mean again it it it drives purpose behind a lot of these teams. When you show up at you know Mariana when you show up at Hadrian when you show up at Castellian like you you literally get people who are so passionate about what they're doing. And and you know, that produces really good results. When you have to do something really hard in the physical world, if you have people that are willing to run through walls, sometimes literally, to solve that problem, you're just, you know, you get really audacious, great outcomes.我最喜欢的事情之一，是在12个月内多次造访同一家公司（无论是否在投资组合中），因为你能通过厂房建设的速度观察到很多东西。
我们不仅去一次，而是去完一次后隔3个月再去，再隔3个月再去。我不是制造专家，但凭借在 Palantir 的经历以及现在的工作，我在车间呆的时间足够长，大概认得一些设备，粗浅懂得产线的运转逻辑。然而，亲眼看着工厂里设备不断积累，看着它从一个空旷、铺着环氧树脂地坪、挂着大号美国国旗、只有几个货盘的仓库，创始人兴奋地向你展示他们自制的叉车……
英文原文
>> Well, one of my favorite things to do, you know, is visit the same company sort of multiple times within a 12-month period, whether they're in the portfolio or not, because you learn a lot by how fast a factory buildout happens. And so, you know, that that that's one thing we do is like we you know, you don't just go once, you go once and then you go 3 months later, you go 3 months later, you go 3 months later. And like, I'm not I'm not a manufacturing expert. I spent enough time on the factory floor on a factory floor between my time at Palantir and and now doing this job. Um you know, I like sort of know what some of the machines are and kind of like how a line roughly works, but like there's just something about seeing stuff accumulate in a factory and it goes from the process of watching something go from like empty warehouse with epoxy floors and the big American flag and maybe like a couple of pallets and the founder is really excited to show you their forklift that they built.[笑]
英文原文
>> >> [laughter]角落里搭着篮球架或简易健身区；快进到6个月后，他们正为如何扩建而焦头烂额，嚷嚷着“我们需要让市政电网增容供电，因为插上的机器实在太多了”。现场处于一种热火朝天的混乱中，技术人员和操作工随处可见，都在动手造东西。这种见证过程让人非常满足，也极其有趣，能见证这种快速的蜕变是我们的幸运。
英文原文
>> Um and they're kind of like, you know, they they have the basketball hoop set up or like the gym set up in the corner to like, you know, fast forward 6 months and it's just, you know, they're freaking out about how to expand. They're like, "Oh, we need to get, you know, the the city out to to give us more power because we have too many machines plugged in." It's like kind of chaos. There's technicians and operators everywhere, people building stuff. That's really satisfying and and and and really fun and and something I think we're we're lucky to get to see that journey and and and how quickly that can happen.是的。
英文原文
>> >> Yeah.有人做过这类延时摄影记录吗？
英文原文
>> >> Has anyone ever done like a time lapse of uh很多，这已经发展成一个专门的影片门类了。
英文原文
>> >> Oh, there's a lot. It's a whole that's a whole like category of filmmaking.太棒了。
英文原文
>> >> Nice. Nice.各家拿来做对比……
英文原文
>> >> kind of compares theirs and it's like a, you know, a bit of a the the the大家都搞健身角。记得多年前我第一次去 El Segundo 拜访 Isaiah 时，他拉着我在卧推架上练了一组。
英文原文
>> >> do like the gym thing. I remember when I when I first visited many years ago Isaiah and the gundo, uh he made me do a rep on his uh on his他们都有，厂区里全都摆着卧推架。
英文原文
>> >> all they all have they all have like Oh, yeah. They all they all have their bench press set up.这很酷。
英文原文
>> >> Which is cool.供应链传染效应：制造中台与协同工程的兴起
“美国制造”是否存在一种传染效应？即因为某个执行器在美国本土生产出来了，我们现在就能连带造出这个、造出那个；当压缩了一个时间线时，就能协同压缩多个时间线？
英文原文
>> Is is there a like a contagion effect to things being made in America where it's like oh because that actuator is made here now we can make this and now we can make that and sort of when you're able to compress one timeline you can compress multiple timelines.我认为不仅是时间线，还涉及成本和质量。观察国防自主系统很有趣：Saronic 在造大量的无人艇，Covenant 和 Castilleja 在造大量的导弹，Anduril 也在造大量装备。当你要制造许多大系统时，底盘下需要海量的子系统支持。
正如我们前面谈到的呼应点：服务于国防制造的同时，你也正在为另一个行业打下基础。当今世界上其实还没有大量的具身人形机器人，也许有几千台，我说不准确切数字；但构成某些军事系统的子组件，与未来机器人系统所需的子组件完全相同——都是执行器、电机、阀门、开关这类部件。
当你能在质量和成本两个维度上将它们做好，突然之间，其他原本不具备商业可行性的市场一下子就说得通了。机器人领域正在重演这一逻辑：我们倾注精力为军事系统完成所有这些底层子组件的研制（这对国家安全、威慑至关重要），但紧接着，美国将迎来机器人浪潮。我说过 AI 现在还不会拧扳手，但未来终究会具备这项能力。而这正是由我们制造的所有执行器、开关和子系统所赋能的。
它们将服务于全新的市场，并具备财务可行性，我们不必再依赖中国的工厂。这是净利好的，因为工业基础可以通用于许多领域。在组件层面上，美国目前的储备依然不足。如果今天去和一家想要部署机器人的公司交流，他们购买的零部件大概率有99%来自中国。
英文原文
>> I don't think it's just timeline I also think it's cost and quality. I mean it's interesting because when we look at defense autonomous systems in particular like what Saronic's making a lot of boats Covenent's making a lot of missiles Castilian's making a lot of missiles you know Anduril's making a lot of things like when you build many systems you also require many subsystems below that and you know again like there are really interesting military systems being built today that that the corollary though back to the comment we had earlier is like you know by building towards defense you also build for a different industry. We actually don't have a lot of humanoids or robotics that exist in the world today. I mean there are thousands maybe I don't know the exact number but when you think about the the subsystems that go into some of our military systems it's the exact same subsystems that are going to go into the future robotic systems. It's the actuators like it's the motors it's the you know you know valves and switches and those type of things and I think when you can build those two quality and two cost then all of a sudden you make other markets that maybe weren't viable or real all of a sudden make sense and again I think that's going to happen in the robotics world which is you know you we're going to spend all this time on showing development of all those sub components we're going to build for a lot of these military systems which is good we need it for security and safety and deterrence but then all of a sudden you're going to have this you know kind of robotic wave that will come in America I said it you know AI can't turn a wrench yet they can they will eventually um and that will be enabled by all that you know actuators and switches and subsystems that we built it's going to serve a different market and and it's going to make it you know financially viable and we're not going to have to rely on factories in China and and again I think that is that is net good because you know as you build an industrial base an industrial base can be used for many things and you know down to the component level you know I I just think we don't have enough of it in America and it it's a decision like you talk to a robotics company today that wants to build you know, some robotic deployment, there's a 99% chance that majority of what they are buying is coming from China. And so much of their platform出于诸多原因（不仅是地缘政治考量），大家都希望出于质量、成本、迭代速度以及地缘政治的考量，将采购回流本土。在过去三年里，供应商生态系统发展的迅猛程度令人惊叹。
我们投资组合里的一家公司，三年前订购 PCB 板时必须按实际需求的两倍下单，因为他们预设其中50%会因质量缺陷而直接报废。批次送达后进行测试，总有一半通不过质检。
随后，这个领域涌现出初创公司，提出：“我们要解决这个问题。我们要利用软件和现代技术重塑美国 PCB 的制造模式。我们要更快、更便宜，而且质量更好。”如今，同一家客户转而向新供应商采购，PCB 的质检通过率达到了70%、80%、90%。
我们往往低估了终端客户与供应商之间在地理上的紧密协同与联合研发，对拉动产品质量提升所起到的巨大作用。
英文原文
>> for many reasons, not just geopolitical, want to onshore that purchasing for quality, cost, speed of iteration, um you know, and geopolitical reasons. I think like I one thing it you know, it's really over the last 3 years, even just it's remarkable how much of a supplier ecosystem has developed. Like one of the companies in our portfolio, um it's 3 years ago would order two times the number of PCB boards PCBs that they needed because they assumed that they would have to throw 50% of the them away for quality issues. They would get the batch from their supplier, they would do the testing, and 50% of them wouldn't pass a quality test. Um you know, then startups have emerged in this category and are like, "We're going to fix this problem. We're going to use, you know, software and modern technology to, you know, redo the way PCBs are manufactured in the US. We're going to do it faster. We're going to do it cheaper. And guess what? We're going to do it better." Uh and you know, that now that same company um buys, you know, PCBs from new suppliers, and you know, they're keeping 70, 80, 90% uh passing quality test. So, it's I think like we underestimate how much the, you know, close collocation and co-development of some of this technology with um the end customer and their suppliers really matters to to drive quality higher.我认为工业基础领域正在发生一些非常引人深思的事情。如前所述，来自新型系统公司自上而下的需求信号非常强烈：我们在造新型军事系统，Joby 和 Archer 在造新型飞行器，我们在造全新的终端系统。汽车制造变得不同，飞机制造变得不同，军事装备制造也不同了。
当你制造这些全新系统时，其输入端必然需要同步改变。审视当今美国的工业基础：回顾波音制造737客机的方式，波音是一家支撑美国根基的伟大企业，但他们只需拿起电话打给霍尼韦尔（Honeywell），由后者协助制造所有不同的子组件。这不是霍尼韦尔的错，但霍尼韦尔的逻辑是：“我不想再去重新研制一款新的起落架。我们现有的起落架完全符合规格要求，能完成任务，那就继续沿用同一套方案好了。”这种选择非常理性，无论交付的是用了四五十年的旧起落架还是全新研发的起落架，他们拿到的报酬是一样的。
然而问题在于，随着终端系统的新需求不断演进迭代，这套拥有50年历史的子系统在某个节点就会彻底失效。也许它在满足基本指标层面还能应付，但其开发和设计机制决定了它缺乏创新。为什么这很重要？因为新材料已经涌现出来。物理定律虽然没有变，但输入物理机制的原料与输入设计的变量已经改变。
因此，我认为许多制造型企业的机遇在于践行我所说的“协同工程”（co-engineering）。过去四十年里，庞大的下层供应商始终处于“被动接收指令”模式：霍尼韦尔打来电话说需要一套起落架，他们就按照既有图纸与知识产权依样画瓢制造出来。当出现新需求时，中间层供应商无法替霍尼韦尔思考并推翻重写规格要求，因为他们没有这个话语权。
但未来的局面是，你将拥有一个中间层的供应商群体，与终端主机厂（OEM）实质性地开展协同工程——不仅重构终端系统在速度、重量或质量层面的宏观能力，连同每一个单独的零部件都将重新考量、重新设计、重新制造。
自上而下的终端系统在变，底层的各个零部件也在变，而这在过去四五十年间是从未有过的。因此，你将见证一个崭新的、被称为“制造业中台”（manufacturing middle）的群体崛起：他们与客户协同工程，将设计和开发能力自底向上推向供应链，而不是像过去那样被动接收订单、机械重复40年前的做法。这是一个巨大的机遇。我此前曾将其定义为：我们正在开创“美国制造业资产类别”。私募股权在过去很长时间里一直在这一生态中运作，收购资产、降本增效然后转手倒卖，这并没有从根本上改变制造的内容。而现在的企业将切实改变我们所制造的物件。
英文原文
>> So, something really interesting is happening, I I believe, in the industrial base. Uh like we talked about earlier, you get this top-down demand signal from these new systems companies. Like we're building new military systems, but oh, by the way, like you know, Joby and Archer, we're building new planes, too. Like we're building new end systems. That is That is a fact. Like cars are are being built different, planes are being built, military systems are being built different. When you build these new systems, inherently the inputs of those systems need to change as well. And when you look at the industrial base in America today, like historically, if you go look at how Boeing makes the 737, you know, Boeing's a great company, important to the fabric of America, but they just pick up the phone and they call Honeywell and Honeywell helps them kind of build all the different subcomponents. And it's not Honeywell's fault, but what Honeywell does is they say, "I don't want to build a new landing gear again. We have this landing gear that meets the spec and does the thing. So, let's just keep going and doing that same thing again and again and again." It's rational. Like, you know, they're going to build more 737s. They're going to get paid the same way if it's a 450-year-old landing gear or if it's a new landing gear. The problem though is when you keep iterating on these new requirements for end systems, at some point the 50-year-old subsystem just doesn't work. And maybe it it it physically works in in terms of meets the requirements, but it's been designed and it's been developed in a way that inherently, uh you know, we haven't innovated on it. And and and why does that matter? It's because, you know, we've developed new materials. Like, yes, physics hasn't changed, but but the inputs to the physics and the inputs to that design has changed. So, I think what's happening or what what the opportunity for a lot of these manufacturing companies is to do what I call co-engineering. And, you know, we talked about, you know, the long tail of these like sub-tier uh you know, suppliers that they they've been in receive mode for the last 40 years. Honeywell's picked up the phone and they've said, "Hey, I need another landing gear. Go make that landing gear." And they've executed on the specs with that IP in building it. When you want a new requirement, uh that middle layer cannot, you know, think on behalf of Honeywell and change the requirement because, again, they're not in the position to do it. But I think what's going to happen in the future is you're going to have this middle layer of supply companies that, you know, will effectively be co-engineers with the end OEM of rethinking not just what the end system can do by way of speed or kind of, you know, weight or mass, but the individual subcomponents will be rethought, will be re-engineered, and will be rebuilt. And so, you know, the end system will change from a top level, the the the the individual parts and components will change. And and I think that just hasn't happened in the last 40 or 50 years. So, you're going to see a completely new wave of what I believe like will be called like the manufacturing middle that will be, you know, co-engineering and pushing design and development upward in the supply chain as opposed to just being in receive mode and saying, "Okay, I can build the same thing I built 40 years from now." And I just I think that's an opportunity. I mean, I defined it, you know, previously as like we're creating the American manufacturing asset class right now. I mean, you know, private equity has been playing in this ecosystem for a long time and looking at an asset and buying it and improving the cost and, you know, selling it off again. That's not fundamentally changing the things that we build. Right now, companies will change the the different things that we'll build.电网领域也是极佳的佐证。当你审视电力电子架构时，我们即将迎来在电网电能管理与传输方式上的巨大代际飞跃。从1970和1980年代全美大规模铺设的静态机械系统，转向现代电力电子系统与电池储能架构，后者更加软件原生化且高度灵活。当技术发生如此剧烈的代际更替，替代物与前代产品完全迥异时，你就有机会重新构想其背后的整条供应链，以及所有设计与工程工作的落地形式。
英文原文
>> A good example of this is kind of the on the on the grid. And when you think about sort of like the electronic stack, and we're about to go through a a huge step change in how we manage and transfer power on the grid. Moving from a system of sort of static and mechanical systems that were deployed in large scale across the US in like the '70s and '80s to now sort of modern power electronics, battery storage architectures, which are much more software native and flexible. And, you know, that is just when you have a such a complete step change in technology where the technology that's replacing the previous thing is just completely different, you have this opportunity to rethink the entire supply chain behind that and the way all of that design and engineering work happens.能源领域的演进与国防或商用系统如出一辙：数据中心、新工厂和新基建带来了庞大的需求缺口。拥有这种顶层牵引力时，你便能如 Aaron 所述那样打破常规，重构整套底层架构。
英文原文
>> And in the energy world, it's the same thing that's happening in the defense or the the commercial systems world, which is you have this massive amount of demand for, you know, data centers and, you know, new factories and new build. When you get this top-down level, you have the ability to innovate like Aaron's talking about and rethink the entire architecture. And look, like因为这是一套全新的架构。
英文原文
>> >> Because it's a completely new architecture.没错。
英文原文
>> >> Exactly.你无法依赖过去世界的组件来简单拼凑，必须获得从底层彻底重塑的机会。
英文原文
>> >> So, you know, you can't rely on these components that worked in the previous world to just reconfigure it. Like you actually have the opportunity to rethink that from the ground up.另一个关键在于：人们完全可以持悲观态度说：“Connor，这些新型军工或终端系统并非都能被采购采纳，那种自上而下的需求不会完全兑现；能源需求也不可能凭空翻上四倍，不会有那么多增量需求。”但我认为这根本无关紧要，因为一旦需求周期的滚雪球效应形成，哪怕最终只兑现了一半的目标要求……
英文原文
>> And another important point here is like, you know, you could be pessimistic and you can say, "Okay, Connor, all these new military or end systems, like not all of them are going to be adopted. So, like that that top-down demand or or or air and like we're not actually going to increase energy by four times. Like there's not going to be that much demand." I actually don't think it matters because I think once you start the snowball of the demand cycle moving in one way, even if you deliver half of that, you know, requirement.绝无回头路。
英文原文
>> >> going back.绝无可能倒退，那在财务逻辑上根本讲不通。当你基于第一性原理重新思考，做出全新的工程与设计决策后，往往伴随着更低的成本与更高的效率，未来你自然会一直采购新架构的产品。
英文原文
>> going back and it doesn't make financial sense and it you know, again, it's it's like when you rethink something first principles and you make the like new design, new engineering decision and a lot of times that comes with better cost, better efficiency, you're just going to buy that thing now going forward.生态传承：从大厂离职创业的“第二代创始人”
更易于维护，更利于生产制造。
是的，你绝不可能再倒退回去。我很想了解，你们在“第二代 Anduril”或“第二代 Palantir”这类背景的创始人身上看到了什么？他们是否看到了这些经验，发现了填补几十年无人问津的中间层供应商的机会？对于这些机遇以及这类创始人，你们观察到了什么？
英文原文
>> serviceability, easier to manufacture. Yeah. Yeah, you're never going back. Yeah, I'm curious kind of what you're seeing in terms of founders being second generation Anduril or second generation Palantir or something like that and maybe they they see some of these learnings and they see the opportunity to be the middle layer supplier in some something that has never been touched since, you know, decades ago and and kind of like what what are you seeing in terms of, you know, those opportunities and those kinds of founders?当然。激励创业者全力以赴的绝佳方式，就是让他们在原先岗位上为某个工程或供应链痛点碰得头破血流。他们会想：“我很在乎这件事，这实在让我寝食难安。我知道其他人也深受其扰，这不仅是 Anduril、SpaceX 或特斯拉独有的问题，而是一个普遍痛点，我要出去彻底解决它。”
有这样一群创始人，他们切实深耕于车间一线。不仅是创始人，工程团队也会说：“我看到了这个问题，我在 Anduril 或 Saronic 内部解决了它，现在我要出来将其做成独立公司；因为我熟悉生态圈里的所有人，所以我天然拥有了一批现成的忠实客户群体。”
我们确实看到这种趋势正在上演，这也是生态系统的构建之道。人们常调侃 Y Combinator 的公司都在互为买家做内部销售，但生态系统就是这么跑通的：大家都是朋友，具有包容度和理解力，愿意配合并提供帮助，也愿意容忍产品早期的小故障；因为他们自己也在攻克极其艰难的课题，只要你做的事情不是他们最生死攸关的核心主航道，他们非常乐意将其外包给你。这太棒了，硅谷当年就是这样建立起来的。真正让我无比乐观的，是我们在物理世界生态和供应链中也开始广泛看到这种协作景象。
英文原文
Yeah, for sure. I mean, if you you a great way to light a fire under an entrepreneur is for them to be banging their head against the wall on a sort of engineering or supply chain problem where they are and then they're, you know, they're like, "Well, okay, I really care about this. This is a a pain in my ass. I know it's I know it's bothering other people. I know it's a problem that I don't just have here at Anduril or SpaceX or Tesla. It's a problem more broadly. I'm going to go solve that more generally." Um and the kind of lineage of founders that have sort of lived and breathed this on the manufacturing floor. And not just founders, but even engineering teams who are like, "I saw this problem. I solved this, you know, within Anduril or Saronic or whatever and I'm going to actually like go out and build this as a company and then I'm going to, you know, I know that everyone in the ecosystem, so I'm I I I have, you know, automatic access to a customer base that's captive. Yeah. Um you know, we certainly see that trend happening and, you know, this is how ecosystems get built. Like people make fun of YC for all YC companies kind of selling to each other. But like that's how it works because you have you know, you it's it's your friends. They're tolerant. They're understanding. They're willing to like work with you and help you and and you know, put up with something breaking because they're working on their own really really hard problem and if you know, the thing you're doing is not the most existential thing to them. They're like very willing to outsource it to you. That's beautiful. That's how Silicon Valley was built. And what's really like what makes me really optimistic is the extent to which we're starting to see that in these kind of physical world ecosystems and supply chains.是的，前面提到的 SpaceX 和 Palantir 绝非一蹴而就的成功。这些公司花了极长时间才达到如今的产品规模、业务体量与成功高度。
英文原文
>> Yeah. I I I think that the few companies you mentioned, you know, the SpaceX's, the Palantirs, um look, they weren't overnight successes. Like those companies took a long time to get to both the product scale and just the the size and and success of the company that they're at.所谓“一夜成名”，足足花了20年。
英文原文
>> >> Overnight successes that took 20 years.确实如此。核心经验——这份榜单上许多出自这些生态圈的创业者身上所共有的特质——就是学会了对单一目标的执着专注：竭尽所能把一件事做到极致，沿着既定路线不达成功绝不罢休。
我在 Castilleja 的团队身上亲眼目睹了这一点：他们花了两年半到三年时间，心无旁骛攻坚第一款极难制造的高超音速导弹。期间有人劝他们：“做多产品线吧，去造个小型无人机。”他们坚决回绝：“不，我们必须把这一件事做到极致。”
我认为这种基因承袭自 SpaceX。在 SpaceX，有着“责任工程师”（Responsible Engineer）文化——如果这个组件失效了，就是我的责任，我必须一遍又一遍死磕打磨。制造极其硬核的产品必须具备这种精神。成功的路径千姿百态，并非每个人都会照搬 SpaceX 的思路，但若审视实体工业领域的大批此类企业，要攻克极度艰巨的任务，确实必须具备这种定力。
英文原文
>> Exactly. And and I think that the learning point and you know, we invest in a lot of the entrepreneurs on this list I come come from those ecosystems is you just learn this like relentless focus to do the one thing as well as you can, you know, down a path until you've succeeded and like, you know, I've I've I've seen this with with the Constellation guys for example is like they focused for two and a half three years on the first hypersonic missile that was really hard to build and you know, other people showed up and they're like, "Oh, be multi-product. Go build this small drone here." And they're like, "No, we need to do this one thing really well." And I think, you know, that comes from the fabric of SpaceX. Like at SpaceX the concept of being a responsible engineer and like if this thing doesn't work, like it's my ass. I'm going to make sure like >> [laughter] >> I'm going to obsess over this thing again and again. Like that's what it takes to build really hard things. And again, like, you know, there will be different, you know, derivations of of success. Not everyone will think just like the SpaceX mindset, but if you look at a lot of these businesses like that, you know, in the physical world you kind of need to do that to build something really hard.在此过程中，你沉淀掌握了工艺知识，学会了全套工程门道。因此，在开发第二款、第三款、第四款产品时……
英文原文
>> And but what what you do with doing that is you learn, you know, you learn that process knowledge. You learn how to do it. And so thing two, thing three, thing four就容易得多了。
英文原文
>> >> Yeah.难度会大幅降低。你已经搭建好了供应链，确立了商务合作关系，摸索出了面向制造的设计流程，掌握了高规格高质量建造工厂的能力，也赢得了客户的深厚信任。如果能把核心单品打磨到极致，就为你做好其他事情奠定了基石；但前提依然是，你必须在那最核心的一件事上成功交卷。
英文原文
>> are a lot easier. You've developed a supply chain. You have your relationships. You've developed manufacturing for or design for manufacture processes, you know, you've learned how to build a factory to a high quality, high spec. You've learned how to build that trust with customers. And so, if you can do that one thing really well, that sets you up to do other things really well, but it doesn't work unless you deliver on that是的。
英文原文
>> >> Yeah.必须在那关键的一件事上兑现交付。
英文原文
>> on that one core thing.中美竞争与民间资本市场的独特动能
关于国际竞争与中国的话题大家谈论很多。回到资本市场，美国在赋能这些初创企业方面具有哪些独特优势？
英文原文
>> Uh so, we talk a lot about competition. China, what does the United States do uniquely when it comes to our capital markets that that really enables these startups?我认为这是极具决定性的一环。Anduril 联合创始人 Brian Schimpf 几天前也谈到了这一概念：我们的资本市场中确实沉淀着数万亿美元的民间资本，它们天然追逐成功——既追随技术上的突破，也在一定程度上追逐制造落地的成功。
纵观美国：首先，我们没有一套自上而下指定国家在某一具体项目上必须投入多少资金的产业政策。我认为在某种程度上这是件好事，因为资金会自然流向优秀创业者，追随真实的成功。
其次，虽然美国向来拥有强大的资本市场，但现在的关键差别在于资本市场突然意识到：“美国活力”这一赛道极具投资价值。Aaron 和我长期身处其中，但如果你去观察——不仅是横贯硅谷与沙丘路，而是放眼各大主流银行——摩根大通已经承诺投入数万亿美元用于物理世界的投资，不仅覆盖国防，还包括实体工厂及物理领域的其他资产。
类似现象屡见不鲜：除了风险投资机构，私募股权基金如今也开始大规模进军这一赛道。
英文原文
>> Well, I I I think this may arguably is one of I mean, Brian Shimp was talking about it the the founder of Anduril you know, a couple days ago, which is this concept that, you know, we have literally trillions of dollars of private capital in our capital markets that inherently follow, you know, success. Follow both technology success and and, you know, to some extent like production success as well. And I think if you look at the United States, um number one, like we do not have a top-down directed, you know, industrial policy that says the state will put this amount of money in in this. I think to some extent that's a good thing because the money will follow the entrepreneur, the money will follow the success. I think that that the distinction now, we've kind of always had a good capital markets in the United States. I think the distinction is the capital markets all of a sudden have said, you know, what? The category of AD is really interesting. And and, you know, Aaron and I you know, have been living and breathing this for a long time, but if you go look, you know, not just up and down, you know, Silicon Valley and Sand Hill Road, but if you go to, you know, the major banks, I mean, JP Morgan has has committed, you know, trillions of dollars towards, you know, both investing in the physical world, not just defense, but factories and and other things in the physical world. And you see that again and again and again across not just our our venture capital firms, but, you know, private equity now is is is is is starting to play in this category in a big way.大型信贷机构。
英文原文
>> >> Big credit firms.大型信贷机构。这至关重要，因为现实是，AD 领域的许多企业都需要巨额资本。制造实体系统——无论是制造猎鹰9号火箭、协同作战飞机（CCA），还是制造 Black Grid 导弹——搭建产线和造出实体系统的成本看起来都极其高昂。
资本市场用脚投票支持取得成果的领域。现实在于，与中国不同，我们的资本市场并非完全由政府自上而下驱动。这赋予了我们大得多的灵活性：如我所言能精准追随成功，更重要的是，能在需求变得显而易见之前就前置注入资金。我们前面探讨过“在明确采购指令下达之前先行研制”的概念。我们在能源领域可能动作略微滞后，在部分国防系统上也有些许滞后，但资本市场已经觉醒，在未来十年及更长的时间里，将有数千亿乃至数万亿美元的资金注入这一领域。
英文原文
>> Big credit firms. And and and that's so important because, you know, the the the reality is many of these companies in in the AD world, they require a lot of capital. When you build physical systems, when you build a Falcon 9 rocket or when you build a CCA, and you build a Black Grid missile, um it looks so expensive to build up those lines and build that physical system. So, I I think part of this is, you know, the capital markets, you know, speak with, you know, where the success happens. And the reality is is it's the capital markets are not top-down driven by our government, unlike China's. And And what that allows is that allows us to be far more flexible. Uh you know, again, to follow success, like I said. And then more importantly, um to fund things in advance of it being obvious. And And we talked about that earlier, the concept of building in advance of the requirement and the need. You know, maybe we're a little bit late on the energy side. Maybe we're a little bit late on on some of the defense systems. But look, the capital markets have woken up and we're we're putting hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions of dollars, you know, you know, towards this category for the next, you know, 10 plus years.仅看2026年上半年，流入国防生态系统的风险资金就超过了去年全年的总和；而去年的数字又是此前一年全部总和的数倍。过去在国防领域流传着所谓的“死亡之谷”叙事：初创企业如何靠微薄的政府合同熬过漫长艰难的资本支出周期？
令人振奋的是，在资本市场和风险资本的支持下，“死亡之谷”正在趋于消亡。这种支撑力量正明显超越国防生态本身，向能源、机器人、关键矿产等关乎国家命脉的其他关键领域拓展，这一态势令人倍感鼓舞。
英文原文
>> mean, if you look at just the first half of 2026, more uh more risk dollars went into the defense ecosystem than all of last year combined, which was many times what went into the defense ecosystem in all of the previous year combined. And I think historically there's, you know, in defense specifically, for example, there's been, you know, a narrative around the valley of death and like how do you get the government contract to like propel you through this period um of needing to build out CapEx. And And what's really exciting is that almost that that that's start that's starting to disappear with the support of of capital markets and and and of risk and of risk capital. And that's certainly extending even beyond the defense ecosystem to energy and robotics and critical minerals and some of these other sectors that are really important, which is super super exciting to see. Um yeah.电网跃迁与实体经济红利分配
我有一个问题，可能稍微有点扯远：那张非常有名的对比美国发电量与中国新能源发电产出的图表——美国的曲线基本走平，而中国的曲线则持续陡峭上升。要弥合这一差距需要付出什么，或者说我们新建电力的速度究竟能有多快？
英文原文
>> I had one question. I'm not sure if it's too much of a tangent, though. Just um there's that very famous chart of like US power production versus like China new new power new energy production. Like America's line is like basically flat and China's is, you know, up and to the right. Like Like I I guess some question uh around like like what would it take to close that gap or how how fast can we build new power?我认为这不是一个技术问题，而是作为美国人民我们需要直面内心意志的灵魂拷问：我们是否真正希望合规项目落地建造？我们自身是否渴望增长？只要我们具备这种意愿，技术和资本自然会迅速跟进。
英文原文
>> Yeah, I I don't think that is I don't think that that is a um technology problem. I think that that's a we need to do some soul-searching about our will as an American people. And do we want conforming projects to be built? Do we want to grow? Um and if we do, I think that the technology and the capital will follow.是的，有意思的是这不仅仅是能源领域的问题，而是一个全方位的命题。我们本质上是乐观主义者，我相信雪球已经开始滚动。
问题在于（回到前面关于资本市场的探讨）：这些赛道能否涌现出一批显赫的领头羊，从而吸引更多增量资本注入生态系统？这是一种自我实现的预言机制：只要能把它造出来，人们就会纷至沓来。但终点处必须有看得见的丰厚果实。一旦有少数标杆企业脱颖而出，正如我所说，资本就会源源涌入。
最后我想简要补充的一点是：物理世界中的任何工程都需要时间。要建立起足以影响宏观发电能力、国防系统或关键产业的规模化工厂，绝非拉来两三个软件工程师往几台服务器和电脑屏幕前一坐就能捣鼓出答案的。这需要搬移泥土，需要深入供应链物理底盘。这些突破必须经历数年周期的打磨沉淀。因此在资本市场端，我们需要保持适度的耐心。
但无论如何我依然保持乐观，变革正在发生。从某种程度上讲，这是我们自己的机会——唯一的风险在于作为政府和国家，我们是否会自我搞砸并阻碍这一进程。不可否认这种风险是存在的。
英文原文
>> Yeah. And it's funny because, you know, this is not just an energy problem. It's, you know, it's it's an everything problem. And and and look, I you know we're we're optimists inherently. I do think that snowball has started to roll. I think the question is, you know, back to our discussion on capital markets earlier, will will there be emergent winners in these categories that then fuels more capital to flow into the ecosystem? And you know, it's this kind of self-fulfilling prophecy that happens. Like, you know, yeah, if you build it, you know, that you know, they will come. But at some point there needs to be a pot at the end of the rainbow. And if there is for a few companies, I think, you know, one capital will flow like I mentioned. But but I think the last thing I'll say just real briefly is uh anything in the physical world takes time. Um you know, we you know, to set up a factory, you know, at a scale where it really you either affect our our power generation or you affect our military systems or you name it, you can't take a couple of engineers, you know, throw them in front of a couple servers and computer screens and come up with an answer. I mean, it's it's moving dirt. It is physically understanding a supply chain. Like, these things take years. And so, you know, there's a little bit of patience that we need to have in the capital market side. But again, I think I'm optimistic. I think it's happening. And you know, to some extent, like, it's ours to lose. Like, it's ours as a government and a nation to to mess up and to get in the way of this. And that's a risk. Don't get me wrong. But我认为即便短期内伴随阵痛，资本市场长期来看还将带来另一重深远益处。正如你强调的，这些都是实体资产，需要时间周期；但正因为是物理实体，它们在周边的居民和社区中拥有实实在在的物理具象呈现。
至关重要的一点是，美国广大民众必须切身感受到自己分享到了这种发展带来的经济红利。软件产业具有一定的隔离性，它高度局限在少数几个中心城市，属于虚拟产物。过去20年里，你感受它的方式体现为数字服务体验变得越来越好，但它相对抽象。而在物理世界中，有人就在你家后院建造数据中心、发电厂或矿场，你对其拥有发言权，也拥有切身利益。你每天亲眼看到它，它切实影响着你的生活。如果民众无法感知自己分享到了经济红利，阻力就会很大。资本市场长远来看能够很好地化解这一矛盾，因为企业必须探索如何携手当地社区共同发展，让社区在经济与财务上感到切实受益。
英文原文
>> I do think it's I do think it's another will be another long-term benefit of capital markets even if it's short-term painful. Just people need to feel I mean, you mentioned that these are physical things. They take time. They're also physical things in that they have a physical manifestation to the people and communities that live around them. And the most important thing is that, you know, American society at large feels like they're participating in the economic growth that's coming as a result of this development. Software, you know, was sort of could like had this ability to be sort of siloed cuz it really existed in just a few cities. It was kind of this virtual thing. You sort of experienced it in the way that your your interaction with digital services got better, a lot better over the last 20 years, but it you know, it it was a little bit more it was a little bit more abstract. Physical world, like someone's building a data center, a power plant, a mine in your backyard. Um and you need a you know, you you have a say and you have a stake in that. You you physically see it. It affects your life. And if you don't feel like you have participation in that economic upside, it's hard. I do think that this is one thing that the capital markets long term will solve really well because companies will figure out how to bring communities along for the journey and make it financially and economically worth it.确实有很好的示范：AD 50 榜单上的几家公司真正在其社区建造实体资产，并以恰当的姿态深耕融入。当然过去几年里也有反面教材。
以 Amco 为例：他们走进那些极小型的机械加工车间，与他们展开合作，并不裁撤管理层或解雇员工，而是共同探讨：“我们如何开发新产品，如何把你们现有的业务做大？”
正是这种与社区并肩合作而非站在其对立面的理念，我认为在科技圈仍需深入反思磨合。我们必须清醒地意识到，仅仅坐在硅谷的高楼里，我们根本无法洞悉世界上正在发生的一切。
从根本上说，我认为许多 AD 领域的企业所建造的资产将触及美国中部地区，在地理上真实扎根于美国中部。我认为这是净利好的——这意味着更多的就业岗位、更广泛的繁荣，以及一个能源充裕、更加安全的美国。
英文原文
>> And I think there are some good examples of that, a few companies on the AD 50 list who like, you know, build real things in their communities and show up the right way. There are also bad examples that have existed in the last, you know, few years. I mean, if you look at what Amco does, like they show up to these these really small machine shops that exist. They partner with them, you know, they don't they don't you know, cut the management and fire people. They say, "How can we build new products and grow the kind of, you know, business that you have today?" And it's that type of you know, concept of working with communities as opposed to working against them that I think we still need to, you know, wrestle with a little bit in in the tech world and understand that just cuz we sit in Silicon Valley, I mean, we we we don't understand everything that's happening in the world. And you know, fundamentally, I think a lot of these 80 companies will build stuff that that touches middle America. I mean, it will physically exist in middle America and you know, I I I think that's net good. I think that means more jobs, more prosperity. I think that means more energy and abundance world where you know, we have a safer America and减少财富在东西海岸少数精英阶层的过度聚集，这无疑是一件好事。
英文原文
>> >> less concentration of wealth in these pockets in these elite pockets on the coasts. It's a good thing.是的。
英文原文
>> >> Yeah.但这需要时间。
英文原文
>> >> But it will take time.是的。
英文原文
>> >> Yeah.好的，Aaron、Connor，非常感谢二位今天的加入。大家今天就可以去查阅完整的 AD 50 榜单。
英文原文
>> Well, Aaron Connor, thank you so much for joining. Uh and everyone can check out the AD 50 list today.太棒了，谢谢。
英文原文
>> >> Awesome, thanks.太棒了，非常感谢。