So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

In short: Businesses had large excess cash reserves, or very strong cash-flow profits. People like Michael Milken figured out how to market high-yield high-risk bonds to the general public. This enabled financial entrepreneurs to extract cash from such companies through leveraged buyouts, in three steps: The investors issue a lot of high-yield debt to buy control of a target company.Have the acquired company borrow as much as it can, and use the money to pay out dividends to cover the investors' debts.Sell the now deeply indebted company, for more than the difference between the special dividends and the original purchase price. After the brief explosion of such deals in the 1980s, this sort of private equity transaction became part of the background incentives within which US corporations function. Rare exceptions like Apple can hold onto large cash reserves; for the most part, a company that isn't already lean enough to need to roll over its debts constantly is a target for extraction. And a company that is so lean is totally dependent on the continued exception-making of the too-big-to-fail financial system and the state decisionmakers who oversee it.

I think that as people criticizing a regime, despite the regime's terribleness, we have an epistemic obligation to provide alternatives. If I explain why your perpetual motion machine cannot work, I am not obliged to provide you with a plan for a working perpetual motion machine. If you don't know how to live your life without claiming to have plans for a perpetual motion machine, that cannot oblige me to figure out how to make your fantasy a reality.

This is true even though many people falsely claim to be trying to create a new culture, and simply redecorate an old one.

Explicit norms are harder to enforce in large groups (and large groups means, by normal distribution, the cleverest Goodharters will be very clever) and autists are bad at detecting implicit norm violation. With n=1 (me) this isn't just because of gaslighting, but also because language is parsed extremely literally and locally, regardless of context.

Right now, selection effects mean that actual cooperators are disproportionately autistic.

geek-mop-sociopath

There's close enough to freedom of speech & association (especially now that cryptography's good enough) that it should be possible to build a parallel set of communication and dispute-resolution mechanisms

The bourgeoisie do not seem to have discovered that they were in a conflict.

In The Deluge, Adam Tooze describes American president Woodrow Wilson as seriously concerned with the correlation of default risk. If Americans held to much British and French debt, then Britain and France would be Too Big To Fail and the American government would come under pressure by American creditors to intervene if the Allies seemed in danger of losing the war; American taxpayers would ultimately pay the bill. Wilson eventually went as far as to actively discourage major US bankers like JP Morgan from helping the British and French governments sell more bonds to Americans.

In 1913, under President Woodrow Wilson, the Federal government responded by creating a new nationally chartered banking system called the Federal Reserve System. Soon after came the first World War, and a massive expansion of Federal spending and national debt finance.

n 1907 Morgan bailed out the federal government itself.

JP Morgan rose to prominence as an unofficial central banker.

In effect, the states which had already paid off their own debts now had to subsidize the debtor states.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

It shows us an older type of aristocrat compatible with bourgeois ethics, being edged out by a new type compatible with the high finance of the modern state.

He responds by telling her "love is a dunghill, Betty, and I am but a cock that climbs upon it to crow," he doesn't care where she goes, and at least her son will know his father's name. She hangs herself from shame.

He was deeply in debt, and any compunctions against this unjust violence were outweighed by his shame as a debtor.

One might better describe the capitalist idea of acquisitiveness as, "whoever has the largest legally enforceable claims against the future productive capacity of others wins." Jews in particular have been making this mistake since biblical Joseph reduced Egypt to debt-slavery. Legally enforceable claims are threats, and if you're threatening a lot of people then you have a lot of enemies, which is dangerous.

Capitalism is sometimes described as "whoever dies with the most toys, wins,"

The Anglo-French nobility thus occupy a sort of parallel economy to the cash economy used by the English state. They can issue debt, which - as long as they've held onto their social status - might even recirculate as a sort of secondary currency. Since they are competing for position using resources that must be paid for (e.g. decorators' and caterers' bills), they are in an arms race that selects for people willing to accumulate debts.

Basically, if you have a functioning reputation network, you can sell to a buyer at point A in exchange for a letter entitling you to some of the buyer's account held at point B.

It appears that states (or more precisely, the kinds of elites who staff executive bureaucracies) started a giant war in order to borrow a lot of money from the creditor-bourgeoisie to hire vast armies of dependent political clients.

In 2008 we worried that:- It might become cheaper to live in a home.- Wall Street might shrink as a share of the economy.- The corrupt Big 3 automakers might get out of the way of well-run companies like Hyundai and TeslaThe Fed made more money to prevent this good outcome.

The incentives it creates reinforce well-known patterns of intracorporate conflict, in which factions that inflate nominal profitability, and leaders who manage to hire more people, gain in size and influence at the expense of ones that don't.

For this reason, in the 2008 financial crisis, the Big Three automakers were bailed out, even though there were plenty of more efficiently run foreign companies happy to sell cars to Americans.

monied friends

which can increase their paper profitability yet again without any improvement in the efficiency of real resource usage.

This sort of opportunity would not exist if there were an adequate supply of potential entrepreneurs with access to capital.

Housing is an informal part of what economists would call the money supply.

Forgetting about down payments, suppose the effective rate of interest on a house is 20%. Then someone with a housing budget of $10,000 per year can afford a house priced at up to $50,000. But if the rate of interest goes down to 5%, then that person's leveraged purchasing power goes up to $200,000. Thus, as mortgage rates declined over time along with Treasury rates, the value of real estate increased over time.

Medicaid, hospital care can be financially ruinous unless you have a "good job," which will usually be the kind of job one holds due not to competence but to class privilege

If you are able to demonstrate dependency via unemployability, then you can access housing and food subsidies that are probably enough to live decently on if you are diligent and clever, though in practice bureaucrats might threaten you with withdrawal of those resources if you don't demonstrate a level of shame incompatible with economic prudence.

As debt increases over time, more resources are allocated on the basis not of cash profits, but of access to capital, i.e. ability to borrow (or issue stock) at low effective rates of interest.

Albion's Seed

finitist society

Instead, publicly traded corporations are able to pay more than private competitors for leases and talent and charge consumers less because they have access to cheap capital, and are optimizing not for profits, but for growth. In other words, their interest in expanding their business is not to increase total profits, but to increase total expenditures.

In the old regime, they were accountable. In the new regime, they are instead asked to obey and conform, i.e. pass the Milgram and Asch tests respectively.

You've Got Mail

His daughter sees that her father's way of life is financially unsustainable, and also sees herself as only a financial burden to him, not a potentially productive asset.

A local entrepreneur I know tells me that a well-run coffee shop in a well-chosen location can pay for itself (recoup the initial investment) within a year, while an investor in the stock market is doing well if they double their money in nine years.

Six Feet Under

The television series Thirteen Reasons Why is a story told within the frame of a high school student's audiocasette suicide note, which describes an experience of high school that was not preparing her to serve any useful function in society

Doris Lessing's The Golden Notebook

Shawanna is not constrained in her ability to talk by playing coalitional games.

The Keynesian revolution systematically reallocates resources away from objectively creditworthy people to create jobs for people like Ann. Mechanically, how does this happen?

I was able to explain to Shawanna - and demonstrate by my failed attempt to have a conversation with Ann - that Ann can't listen to Shawanna, not because Shawanna is black, but because Ann can't listen to anything that might hold her accountable.

But Ann's class performance rendered her in need of coddling, mentally incompetent to handle criticism.

underwriting loans based on the kinds of fundamentals a bank might use before the existence of empiricist credit scores.

asked Ann whether she had considered designing an alternative system of credit on a for-profit basis - in other words, lending to formerly incarcerated people not because they are in need, but because they might be creditworthy. She didn't recognize that as an option, responded as though I had said she should not underwrite based on "risk" at all, and asserted without argument the moral superiority of credit unions over for-profit banks.

coalitional game.

knowledge base of grassroots initiatives

TikTok didn’t invent the patterns that make content addictive.

But what if you didn’t need to wait for nature? What if you manufactured the dependency in days and provided the relief in minutes? Create the craving, sell the satisfaction. Scale that across millions of people. The formation time collapses to nothing. The extraction becomes continuous.

LP

What happens when you deplete human psychology? When the substrate itself changes because you’ve extracted from it too aggressively?

The ability to focus deeply is finite. We’re not extracting rocks from the ground. We’re extracting cognitive capacity from people. And unlike oil, which you can stop pumping, this extraction is continuous. Every human, every day, having their attention harvested.

The wealth isn’t created. It’s converted. You’re turning stored time into immediate value.

The fishing companies paid for boats and nets. They didn’t pay for the centuries of fish breeding fish.

Lithium.

By a process so slow it’s almost meaningless to human minds.

This paper presents an example implementation of a way for programs to describe themselves to each other and to users in a decentralized system.

she could not tell if questions themselves were real.

But the experience itself would remain hers. Only approximated. Only described. Never transmitted.

You trust what they tell you. There is no objective scale.

The model had no such foundation. It read nursery rhymes and Dostoevsky and technical manuals on engine repair with the same blank attention, extracting patterns from an ocean of text, assembling responses that mimicked coherence. No scaffolding. No progression. No body to ground the abstractions.

No way to check from inside.

Was the noticing itself territory or just more pattern?

The model had proved maps were enough. But enough for what? For coordination, yes.

The person behind it either sealed in a private world or nothing but narrative structure. No way to tell which. No way to tell if the difference mattered.

And if there was no territory, what was she sealed from?

If she was sealed from territory, how was that different from territory not existing? If she could never access it, never verify it, never touch it, what did it mean to say it was there?

Maybe there was no territory. Maybe there never had been. Just maps referencing other maps, creating the illusion of ground through recursion.

Still machinery generating maps, generating the sensation of having something underneath.

but because it created patterns that satisfied the requirements of exchange.

If coordination worked without territory, without approximation, without projection, what was territory for?

But the model had nothing to get. It was just mirroring. Pattern matching that created the feeling of coordination.

She typed again: “Have you ever experienced this?”“I don’t experience panic attacks, but I can describe what people report feeling during them based on the accounts I’ve learned from.”

The model could simulate any side of any argument. It had no stake, no experience to defend, no private territory to protect. It was pure coordination, pure pattern matching, pure map with no ground beneath.And it worked.

if something with no experience could satisfy the same requirements as something with experience, what was coordination actually doing?

It generated descriptions that felt true, that matched the maps humans used, that satisfied every coordination requirement of language. With no territory underneath at all.

No pain. No red. No vanilla. No sense of identity. No God.

Humans could approximate because they shared substrate, not identical but similar enough.

The experience was private.

The maps aligned not because the territories were similar, but because the maps themselves were all anyone had access to.

Religious experience was accepted as radically private in a way pain was not. You could doubt someone’s God and still respect them. But doubt their pain and you were cruel.

The territory was real enough for her. The maps coordinated well enough with others who shared the experience. The scientist’s skepticism was irrelevant.

She had no access to that territory. She could study the neurology. Could understand the mechanics of religious experience, the brain regions that activated, the biochemical states that correlated with reports of transcendence. But those were maps. Descriptions from the outside. The thing itself, what it was like to feel the presence of God, remained locked inside her friend’s private experience.

You are trying to explain my territory using your map.

The raw experience is real, but the map you are putting on it, calling it God, calling it presence, calling it connection to the divine, that is interpretation. Not territory.

If someone asked her to prove it, to demonstrate the territory underneath the map, what could she offer? Her body was evidence only if you already accepted the correlation. Circular reasoning dressed as verification.

Why? The physical form was shared in both cases. The territory was private in both cases. The report was unverifiable in both cases.

But report a sense of gender that diverged from visible anatomy and suddenly the calculus reversed.

The sense that if we share the same physical form, we should have similar maps.

When someone says I am a woman, they are reporting an internal state. A sense of fit. Of alignment. Of rightness in a particular category. The scientist could not verify it any more than she could verify someone’s pain. She could not step into their experience and check. She could only trust the report.

She remembered a conversation she had overheard. Two people debating identity. One asking how someone could know what it felt like to be a woman if they had never lived in a woman’s body. The other responding that no one shares the same experience of womanhood, that a woman raised in one culture experiences it differently than a woman raised in another, that there is no single reference point defining the category.

What it would be like for a human to be in a bat’s situation. Not what it was like to be a bat. The hardware was too different. The approximation broke down. What remained was projection.

She opened a drawer, found a small bottle of vanilla extract, held it to her nose. Sweet, warm, familiar. A memory surfaced unbidden. Her grandmother’s kitchen, cookies baking, flour dusted across the counter. How would she explain this smell to someone who had never encountered it? She could say it was sweet, could compare it to other scents, could describe the chemical compounds triggering the receptors in her nose. But the smell itself, the experience of smelling it, would remain hers alone. All attempts to transmit it, lossy. Necessarily, fundamentally lossy.

anecdata

cultural gaps in TRP assumptions about the world.

That’s another thing—control. The, for lack of a better word, Reddit ethos of the time was that anything that happens to you romantically is not your fault and it just happens. If your partner cheats on you, they were an irredeemable sociopath and that’s it—it doesn’t matter if you refused to have sex with them for months, stopped taking care of your appearance, or never spent any time with them. The fate of your relationship never had anything to do with you. TRP offered a different perspective, which was that every bad thing that happened to you was your fault, but that also meant you could prevent those bad things by being sufficiently high-value and “holding frame.” The truth probably lies somewhere in between, but you can see why the TRP perspective would be more appealing to lots of people, including women.

All women have heard of someone whose boyfriend cheated on her with a less attractive woman.

Men are simple apes who enjoy booba booba and various lubricated holes, no?

It’s the female version of the high school boys who dream of spying on girls’ sleepovers.

If a woman wanted bottomless male attention, she could simply just post thirst traps on Instagram. Going to TRP for fawning simps seems like a pretty dumb strategy, to put it mildly.

I think for many of us, it was one half spying behind enemy lines, and one half genuine curiosity.

I’m sorry, I don’t take men at face value any more than men should take women at face value when we say we like “nice guys.”

a fish cannot teach a fisherman to fish.

They claimed to want a woman who would make everything extremely easy for them, even though in reality, this type of woman would appear low-value and bore them to tears. But no self-respecting person is ever going to admit to enjoying a challenge, wanting what they can’t have, or being swayed by others’ opinions and the perception of scarcity.

TRP said that women shouldn’t be trusted to give advice to men about how to attract women.

There were dedicated spaces for married red pill men, but almost all of them were miserable in their marriages (And of course they were. A happily married man who’s getting laid five times a week has no need for TRP!)

Why do you even want to get married? It’s just a piece of paper. (Often said by people who were married themselves, acting like marriage happened to them by mistake).Four years isn’t that long. You’re so young!Women have so many better options than marriage, why don’t you travel the world instead?At 23, you don’t even know yourself.If you want to get married this badly, you don’t really love your boyfriend, you just love weddings.You should never talk to him about your marriage timeline because he will think you’re crazy and clingy.You shouldn’t care when (nay, if) he proposes at all.If you’re insecure about your relationship that means you need to go to therapy to cure all your negative emotions once and for all.

People can control their sexual behavior, but their sexual preferences aren’t beholden to morality.

Miss Trunchbull

If I shared this information in normie conversation, I would be warned to “get out” because my boyfriend having a preference for fit, well-dressed women (and voicing it) was a sign of emotional abuse

He was also very keen on ambitious women with impressive careers and women with whom he could have stimulating conversations.

I’ve experienced plenty of unwanted male attention, but I’ve never entered a room and felt that every man was lasciviously undressing me with their eyes).

It was verboten to admit you wanted to appeal to men at all, let alone admit to looksmaxxing. Mainstream attitudes about women also assumed we were all hot by default, because only beautiful women count.

Had I actually become hot, or were college-aged guys just horny losers who would hit on anything? Could both be true?

At some point, I became addicted to reading and lurking TRP content

I think that once we start dating someone, who do kind of owe it to them not to be a terrible person.

As one of those pick-me girls who got hoovered into TRP a while ago,

nobody has to care about the plight of women

TRP as grooming a generation of “pick me girls.”

our Red Pill Boyfriend Will Ruin Your Life is that he was socially inept enough to actually tell her that “women hit the wall at thirty,” among other copy-paste red pill sayings. He wasn’t just a jerk: he was a red pill jerk with no filter.

if you’re looking to map TRP on the Internet subcultures framework, it’s somewhere in between pickup artistry and MRAs. (Personally, I enjoy red pill content that veers more toward pickup artistry if only because it’s more interesting, but as Archwinger pointed out in his article last week, if a woman likes a red pill writer that means you shouldn’t listen to him. So I don’t know.)

but it prides itself on stoically accepting inconvenient truths

dual mating strategy

TRP was never intended for a female audience, but it's surprisingly addictive for some of us.

Make it legal to have a masculine office culture again.

Let’s make hiring meritocratic in substance and not just name, and we will see how it shakes out.

Many people think wokeness is over, slain by the vibe shift, but if wokeness is the result of demographic feminization, then it will never be over as long as the demographics remain unchanged.

What man wants to work in a field where his traits are not welcome? What self-respecting male graduate student would pursue a career in academia when his peers will ostracize him for stating his disagreements too bluntly or espousing a controversial opinion?

So if women are thriving more in the modern workplace, is that really because they are outcompeting men? Or is it because the rules have been changed to favor them?

Feminization is not an organic result of women outcompeting men. It is an artificial result of social engineering, and if we take our thumb off the scale it will collapse within a generation.

Ross Douthat described this line of thinking in an interview this year with Jonathan Keeperman, a.k.a. “L0m3z,” a right-wing publisher who helped popularize the term “the longhouse”

If the Great Feminization poses a threat to civilization, the question becomes whether there is anything we can do about it.

And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it?

Lithwick lauds women for their irreverent attitude to the law’s formalities, which, after all, originated in an era of oppression and white supremacy. “The American legal system was fundamentally a machine built to privilege propertied white men,” Lithwick writes. “But it’s the only thing going, and you work with what you have.” Those who view the law as a patriarchal relic can be expected to treat it instrumentally. If that ethos comes to prevail throughout our legal system, then the trappings will look the same, but a revolution will have occurred.

But they lacked many of the safeguards that our legal system holds sacred, such as the right to confront your accuser, the right to know what crime you are accused of, and the fundamental concept that guilt should depend on objective circumstances knowable by both parties, not in how one party feels about an act in retrospect. These protections were abolished because the people who made these rules sympathized with the accusers, who were mostly women, and not with the accused, who were mostly men.

The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female.

The most relevant differences are not about individuals but about groups. In my experience, individuals are unique and you come across outliers who defy stereotypes every day, but groups of men and women display consistent differences. Which makes sense, if you think about it statistically. A random woman might be taller than a random man, but a group of ten random women is very unlikely to have an average height greater than that of a group of ten men. The larger the group of people, the more likely it is to conform to statistical averages

but you live in a country where what gets written in The New York Times determines what is publicly accepted as the truth. If the Times becomes a place where in-group consensus can suppress unpopular facts (more so than it already does), that affects every citizen.

If wokeness really is the result of the Great Feminization, then the eruption of insanity in 2020 was just a small taste of what the future holds.

That is because women’s conflicts were traditionally within the tribe over scarce resources, to be resolved not by open conflict but by covert competition with rivals, with no clear terminus.

doctors said Black Lives Matter protests could continue in violation of Covid lockdowns because racism was a public health emergency.

Men tend to be better at compartmentalizing than women

Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.

71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.

survey data showing sex differences in political values.

Wokeness arose around the same time that many important institutions tipped demographically from majority male to majority female.

Possibly because, like most people, I think of feminization as something that happened in the past before I was born. When we think about women in the legal profession, for example, we think of the first woman to attend law school (1869), the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court (1880), or the first female Supreme Court Justice (1981).

Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or a result of post-Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently. How did I not see it before?

“wokeness” is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.

the Great Feminization thesis

Experts chimed in to declare that everything Summers had said about sex differences was within the scientific mainstream. These rational appeals had no effect on the mob hysteria.

“When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill,”

The essay argued that it wasn’t just that women had cancelled the president of Harvard; it was that they’d cancelled him in a very feminine way.

“Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce,” Larry Summers gave a talk that was supposed to be off the record. In it, he said that female underrepresentation in hard sciences was partly due to “different availability of aptitude at the high end” as well as taste differences between men and women “not attributable to socialization.”

The entire “woke” era could be extrapolated from that moment, from the details of how Summers was cancelled and, most of all, who did the cancelling: women.

“You people would ‘it’s not okay to comment on women’s bodies and she’s always been skinny’

of “stan culture” that

Her body is blown up to be 30 feet tall on the AMC Theatres screen where I saw the sequel to Wicked and shrunk to 11 inches as a Barbie doll bearing her likeness. Her frame, with corsets cinching her waist and gemstones adorning her collarbones, is plastered across billboards and buses and in between posts on my FYP on the most popular apps.

Our 'concern' for Ariana Grande might be part of the problem.

Michael Anissimov.

If the maps aligned, did the territory matter?

Not the friend’s actual experience. Just her projection.

holding you back from the things you want in your career.

When you’re being interviewed for a role, near the end of the process you can also (politely) “interview” them: what does the day to day look like, what responsibilities would you have, etc.

Time-sensitive comparisons: Are you sad you’re not as successful as someone 5 years older than you? Or who has been at this skill for 3x as long as you? Why?Scope-sensitive comparisons: At these top universities you’re already subject to extreme sorting functions - “any smart peer” is not the relevant reference class for “people who could do really cool work on ___ niche EA topic.”Few qualities are immutable: Have you actually tested if you can get incredibly good at this skill? For how many hours? With how many approaches? How much feedback have you gotten?There are many kinds of skills: Even if you really do think you’re surrounded by vastly more impressive people than you…. Get them to work on these problems???? Fieldbuilding is really important- this is my own path to impact.

I’ve heard so many smart and ambitious people that I advise tell me they don’t think they’d have anything to offer in a given field (and I’ve seen some of them get exciting new jobs shortly after telling me this).

Lastly, it can really help to mitigate burnout if your deliberate practice is efficient. Maybe one hour a day of Anki cards actually helps you learn faster than four hours of grinding out papers that you quickly forget.

For me it’s exercise, exercise, exercise (seriously it creates a night and day difference), then maybe meditation, a quick “brain dump” journaling session about my thought process, and quality time with other people.

If a harmful AGI is created tomorrow, I’m not in a position to directly help.

Your Goal Isn’t Really to Get a Job

Don’t work insanely hard on a project in the wrong direction for three months because you never asked anyone for feedback before you started.

anything to get eyes on your project

“work in public”

Writing for a public audience every week?

Testing your fit can take a while. If you’re a student, trying out an internship for one summer in a field you’re not sure about can be a good way to either rule out or invest in a new path. And even once you’re in a full time job there are often ways to test new skills and aptitudes.

Try some 5-10 hour side projects to empirically test which skills are most helpful and ideally to solicit feedback.

deliberate practice

Practicing piano scales is a boring grind, but even the world’s best pianists do it. What is your version of this? You should have an answer. Tyler Cowen has some thoughts here and here.

Career advice is full of trite cliches that people nevertheless need to hear many times because they still haven’t internalized the ideas.

I’m endlessly recommending people to have lots and lots of 1-1 informational career chats for more personalized feedback (“networking”).

I’d argue your north star should be building the relevant skills and expertise while letting people know that you have them, not just “getting a cool job.”

it can feel like your first job will make or break your trajectory

Get a job from the 80,000 Hours job board at a capital-E capital-A Effective Altruist organization right out of college, as fast as possible, otherwise feel like a failure, oh god, oh god...

Obsessively improve at the rare and valuable skills to solve this problem and do so in a legible way for others to notice. Leverage this career capital to keep the flywheel going— skills allow you to solve more problems, which builds more skills. Rare and valuable roles require rare and valuable traits, so get so good they can’t ignore you.

You should find an important problem to work on.

“get good, be known.”

omniscient

axioms fully apply here.http://www.magic-flight.com/pub/uvsm_1/idm_foundations_01.pdf

integral philosophy