TOAD @bailgear

@MacroTactical +1

i interviewed w googl yrs ago.. the hiring manager wanted me but in googl interview process if one person doesnt like you you dont get in.. YOU know me im insanely cocky... i basically told one of the the manager's no need to work hard and no need to work long hrs only people that dont understand how to work smart do that he told me people work lots of hrs i said measn you have some NOT so smarter people he got pissed.. lol pretty sure i would have been running that company 0 reason to take shit from anyone at any company 0 reason to work non stop like a cockroach get smarter and work smarter.. NOT that hard

Above all, you must learn to become (and remain) flexible and adaptable. As 19th Century Prussian military strategist Helmuth von Moltke so eloquently put it: "No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy." Put a different way, when asked his thoughts on the strategy of his opponents, Mike Tyson responded; "Everyone has a plan... until I punch them in the mouth." There is no such thing as a bad business plan on paper. But shit happens. Life unfolds with its myriad of unexpected and unaccountable variables. You WILL get hit. It's not a matter of if, but WHEN. And when circumstance does strike, how are you going to respond? The amateur falls in love with the plan. The professional falls in love with the mission. But the plan is just the first draft map drawn, not yet bloodied by reality. Reality has teeth. Markets shift. Technology develops. Wind changes direction. Encountering change, and emerging victorious is less a matter of "having a plan", and more about having the internal resources and architecture to keep moving, and adjust on the fly when your plan gets murdered. Musashi said, "Fixation is the way to death; Fluidity is the way to life." YOU MUST STAY ADAPTABLE. NEVER FALL IN LOVE WITH THE PLAN. BOB AND WEAVE. ROLL WITH THE PUNCHES. Plan lovers are one variable change away from being paralysed. When rubber meets the road, and life doesn't match exactly how they spreadsheeted it.. they freeze, they panic, they quiver, cower, and give up. Then they look for someone to blame... Be it the weather, the economy, the jews, their childhood, their competitors, the algo, their genetics, their parents, the nature of the other gender, their ex, their "trauma", their timing, their lack of resources. Anything. ANYTHING, except the ugly truth. They CUCKED. They folded under pressure. They threw in the towel. All because, what they failed to realise is... Much like a rocket, which does not fly to it's destination by being perfectly on course the entire time... but rather, through TINY and CONSTANT course-corrections, deviations, and adjustments. Over and over. Again and again. YOU MUST LEARN TO ADAPT ON THE FLY. (No pun intended) Success does not come from being right at the beginning. Success comes from correcting course at a rate faster than the environment can kill you. Darwin echoed this in his final conclusion, determining the exact quality that allows organisms to survive, expand, flourish, and prosper: "It is not the strongest, nor the smartest of the species that survives. It is the organism MOST ADAPTABLE TO CHANGE." FALL IN LOVE WITH CORRECTING COURSE. Rather than having the goal of creating a life where nothing hits you, instead, aspire to become the kind of person who can take the hit, absorb the feedback and alchemise the experience, becoming better/faster/stronger because of it. Be bending, but never breaking. Pivoting, but never abandoning the mission. Condition yourself day by day to be fluid in method, and violently resolute in commitment. Above all, you must learn to become (and remain) flexible and adaptable. It is the only way to ensure your survival. Namaste.

A Hungarian psychologist raised three daughters to prove that any child could become a chess grandmaster through early specialization. He succeeded. Two of them became grandmasters. One became the greatest female chess player who ever lived. Then a sports scientist looked at the data and found something nobody wanted to hear. His name is David Epstein. The book is called "Range." The Polgar experiment is one of the most famous case studies in the history of deliberate practice. Laszlo Polgar wrote a book before his daughters were even born arguing that geniuses are made, not born. He homeschooled all three girls in chess from age four. By their teens, Susan, Sofia, and Judit were dominating tournaments against grown men. Judit became the youngest grandmaster in history at the time, breaking Bobby Fischer's record. The story became the gospel of early specialization. Pick a domain young, drill it hard, and you can manufacture excellence. Epstein opens his book by telling that story honestly and then quietly demolishing the conclusion most people drew from it. Chess works that way. Most things do not. Here is the distinction that took him four years of research to articulate, and that almost nobody who quotes the 10,000 hour rule has ever read. There are two kinds of environments in which humans develop expertise. Psychologists call them kind and wicked. A kind environment has clear rules, immediate feedback, and patterns that repeat reliably. Chess is the cleanest example. Every game ends with a winner and a loser. Every move is recorded. The board never changes shape. The pieces never invent new ways to move. A child who plays ten thousand games will see most of the patterns that exist in the game, and pattern recognition is exactly what chess mastery is built on. A wicked environment is the opposite. Feedback is delayed or misleading. Rules shift. The patterns that worked yesterday may be exactly the wrong patterns to apply tomorrow. Most of the real world looks like this. Medicine is wicked. Investing is wicked. Building a company is wicked. Scientific research is wicked. Almost every job that involves a complex changing system with humans in it is wicked. The Polgar sisters trained in the kindest environment any human can train in. Their success was real and the method was correct. The mistake was generalizing the method to fields where the underlying structure of the environment is completely different. Epstein's research is what made the implication impossible to ignore. He looked at the careers of elite athletes outside of chess and golf and found that the pattern was almost the inverse of what people assumed. The athletes who reached the very top of their sports were overwhelmingly people who had played multiple sports as children, specialized late, and often switched disciplines well into their teens. Roger Federer played squash, badminton, basketball, handball, tennis, table tennis, and soccer before tennis became his focus. The kids who specialized in tennis at age six and trained year-round for a decade mostly burned out, got injured, or topped out at lower levels of the sport. The same pattern showed up everywhere he looked outside of kind environments. Inventors with the most patents had worked in multiple unrelated fields before their breakthrough work. Comic book creators with the longest careers had drawn for the most different genres before settling. Scientists who won Nobel Prizes were dramatically more likely than their peers to be serious amateur musicians, painters, sculptors, or writers. The skill that mattered in wicked environments was not depth in one pattern. It was the ability to recognize when a pattern from one domain applied unexpectedly in another. That kind of thinking cannot be built by drilling a single subject. It can only be built by accumulating mental models from many subjects and learning to move between them. The deeper finding is the one that should change how you think about your own career. Specialists in wicked environments often get worse with experience, not better. Epstein cites studies of doctors, financial analysts, intelligence officers, and forecasters showing that years of experience in a narrow domain frequently produce more confident judgments without producing more accurate ones. The expert builds elaborate mental models that feel comprehensive and turn out to be increasingly disconnected from the actual structure of the problem. They stop noticing what does not fit their framework. They mistake fluency for understanding. Generalists do better in wicked domains for a reason that sounds almost mystical until you understand the mechanism. They have less invested in any single mental model, so they abandon broken models faster. They are used to being a beginner, so they are not threatened by the discomfort of not knowing. They have seen enough different domains that they can usually find an analogy from one field that unlocks a problem in another. The technical name for this is analogical thinking, and the research on it is one of the most underrated bodies of work in cognitive science. The single most useful sentence in the entire book is the one Epstein puts almost as a throwaway. Match quality matters more than head start. A person who tries six different fields in their twenties and finds the one that genuinely fits them will outperform a person who picked one field at fourteen and stuck to it on willpower alone. The lost years were not lost. They were the search process that produced the match. Every field they walked away from taught them something they later imported into the field they finally chose. The reason this is so hard to accept is cultural, not empirical. We tell children to pick a path early. We reward the prodigy who knew at six. We treat the late bloomer as someone who failed to launch on time, when the data suggests they were running an entirely different and often more effective optimization process underneath. The Polgar sisters were not wrong. The conclusion the world drew from them was. If your environment is genuinely kind, specialize early and drill hard. If it is wicked, and almost every interesting human problem is, then the people who win are the ones who refused to specialize until they had seen enough to know what was actually worth specializing in. You are not behind. You were running the right experiment all along.

Incentives drive outcomes

X Freeze @XFreeze

2 months ago

Elon Musk: "If you punish people too much for failure, then they will respond accordingly, and the innovation you will get will be very incrementalist Nobody's gonna try anything bold for fear of getting fired or being punished in some way. So risk-reward must be balanced and

1K 4K 26K 19.1M 5K

Elon Musk: "If you punish people too much for failure, then they will respond accordingly, and the innovation you will get will be very incrementalist Nobody's gonna try anything bold for fear of getting fired or being punished in some way. So risk-reward must be balanced and favor taking bold moves, otherwise it will not happen"

You can rent wisdom, but you can only purchase it with pain

@coltybrah Life’s in the tails. Middle is boring

@jam_croissant Is that what brought down the hunt brothers

I'd like to wish all of my friends--and even my many enemies--a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Robots are replacing all the people doing robotic jobs.

if it doesnt scare you its probably not ambitious enough

@SilkLifeMedSpa Holy

@DejaRu22 Drug dealing music and drug user music. Never listen to the latter for too long

@coltybrah Seld fest next week in cook city mt?

@ericweinstein seen them multiple nights

If the election outcome is as I expected, it should cause the large minority of the country who supported @KamalaHarris and predicted her victory to begin to question their sources of truth. Half the country has believed that @X is filled with mis- and disinformation, and that they could only therefore rely on The NY Times, MSNBC, CNN and other mainstream media for their news. And they did. If, however, you have been active on @X for the last year, you have known the truth days, weeks and often months before the facts appear in the MSM. The MSM excerpted, clipped and cut to defame @realDonaldTrump while claiming that @JoeBiden was fit as a fiddle. Then when Biden’s polls collapsed, @KamalaHarris was anointed the candidate and her hagiography was written with glowing acclaim from the press. But this could not hold as she ducked the media and held fast to the teleprompter. Citizen journalists with their phone cameras in hand captured the real Kamala forcing her to defend her record and her plans in more media appearances. It did not go well and the public demanded to learn more so @KamalaHarris had to risk more unscripted media. The doom loop was underway with perhaps 60 Minutes as one of the more dramatic examples, even after CBS tried to save her, most glaringly by excerpting one answer to replace a word salad response to another. But the citizen journalists on @X quickly caught and outed this fraud and demanded a transcript. As many who supported Kamala began to realize that they have been misled, they became open to Trump as an alternative, but they didn’t want to rely on the media to understand him because they did not want to be misled again. They wanted to hear the candidate in his own words and that is where @lexfridman and @joeroganhq long form podcasts came to the rescue. When Kamala was offered the same opportunities to explain herself, she rejected them. And the voting public could only draw a negative inference. When the story of this election is written, I expect it will be as much about how half of America woke up to the reality that they have been manipulated by the media. This should lead to an abandonment by many of the MSM as their primary source of information. It will push more people to @X, to podcasts and other empirical sources, and it will lead to a more informed public. The other outcome I hope happens is the implosion of the Democratic Party. The Party lied to the American people about the cognitive health and fitness of the president. It prevented, threatened, litigated and otherwise eliminated the ability of other candidates for the primary to compete, to get on ballots, and to even participate in a debate. The Party and the administration used lawfare in an attempt to imprison, bankrupt or otherwise kill off Trump as a candidate. These acts are collectively grave threats to our democracy. With the highest irony in order to hide these acts, the Party accused the opposition candidate of being the grave threat to democracy. The Democratic Party proved itself to be fundamentally undemocratic. It needs a complete reboot. The leadership should be thrown out and those responsible should apologize to the American people. Honest Abe said it best: You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Bill Ackman @BillAckman

2 years ago

I believe that @realDonaldTrump will win in a decisive victory and potentially a landslide Electoral College outcome tomorrow. I could of course be totally wrong, but that helps elevate an important point. Approximately half the country will be unhappy about the election

2K 4K 46K 11.0M 2K

@GoshawkTrades

Gas pedal