Daniel, this article was such a creative way of thinking about impact through existing market opportunities! It really made me think more deeply about how production capabilities that may already exist locally aren't realized because of operational or export barriers. In some developing countries, highly capable entrepreneurs and producers may struggle to connect to international markets despite having quality products and skill (even demand) and this article helped me see the potential value in companies that enable that connection.
Thank you :)

So basically for an industry like AI, where uncertainty is high, the risks are still not fully understood and governance is still evolving, Congress is struggling to preempt states despite significant executive and industry pressure. But in a mature industry like agriculture, where states have democratically enacted standards, crate-free pathways already exist, suffering is visible and courts have clearly upheld laws, suddenly preemption is on the table and inserted into a must-pass bill. I mean where is the consistency here? It makes one question whether federal preemption is a concern at all for Congress or if it's applied selectively depending on the industry or interests..

This framing is very compelling but it leaves one wondering about what becomes the next stand-in for factory farming. If higher-welfare and alternative systems scale under similar cost and efficiency pressures, what prevents harm from reappearing in less obvious forms like environmental, labor or new welfare tradeoffs?  
Are there ways to define constraints that could "discipline" the system so that in addressing welfare in one area, harm isn't recreated in another?

As an experienced operator from outside AI, I've been trying to understand where someone like me would fit into something like the Generator Residency. Could it be that people with real ops experience from other fields just aren't being picked up because the space seems to prefer people who come up through its own pipeline?