2x Robotics Founder | Dad to 6 Kids | Angel Investor | Music Nut
Joined May 2012
- Tweets16.1K
- Following1.5K
- Followers872
- Likes20.9K
Great advice on growing your audience on social media. Read the whole post. @japan_nobunaga has become one of my favourite commentators on X.
"The reader is not visiting your world.
You are visiting theirs."
I make more than $20,000 a month from X and Kindle now.
And if someone asks me how to grow on X, the first thing I tell them is surprisingly simple:
Stop writing a diary.
Completely.
This is also the hardest advice for almost everyone to accept.
People naturally think:
I have experience.
I have knowledge.
I have an interesting life.
I have something important to say.
So why isn't anyone listening?
Because none of that matters to the reader.
Imagine you're sitting on a train.
A stranger sits nearby and suddenly starts talking loudly about himself.
His career.
His opinions.
His achievements.
His problems.
His childhood.
His plans.
Maybe he's an extraordinary person.
But you don't know him.
Why would you care?
You'd probably move to another car.
X is basically one enormous train full of people doing exactly that.
"Here's what I did today."
"Here's what I think."
"Here's what happened to me."
"Here's what I accomplished."
"Here's my story."
And then they wonder why nobody stops scrolling.
Because the reader didn't open X to care about you.
The reader opened X thinking about himself.
His family.
His job.
His money.
His country.
His memories.
His frustrations.
His fears.
The things that make him laugh.
The things he misses.
The things he loves.
So stop asking:
"What do I want to write?"
Ask:
"What does the reader want to read?"
That's the entire shift.
I don't begin with myself and figure out how to make my story interesting to readers.
I begin with the reader.
What will make him laugh?
What will make him angry?
What will make him remember his father?
What will make him think about his childhood?
What will make him send this to an old friend?
What will make him stop for ten seconds and think:
"That's exactly how I feel."
Then I write THAT.
My own life is irrelevant unless it helps me create that reaction.
My experiences are not the subject.
I am not the subject.
The reader is the subject.
This sounds simple.
It isn't.
Because the human instinct is incredibly strong:
"I want to tell my story."
And that's why 99 percent of people go right back to writing diaries.
They want the audience to become interested in them.
I do the opposite.
I become interested in the audience.
When one of my posts goes viral, I don't think:
"Wow, people loved my story."
I think:
"I found something that already existed inside a lot of people."
That's the difference.
Don't write something and then ask how to make people care about it.
Start with what people already care about.
Then write for them.
Not about yourself.
Not to express yourself.
Not to prove your value.
For them.
The reader is not visiting your world.
You are visiting theirs.
You can't develop any of these skills if the college administrators, professors and students are focused on group-think, which has been the case the past two decades.
Cornell just produced a massive new report on higher education noting that companies have a “jarring” skepticism of higher ed thanks to a new generation of degree holders who lack key skills like handling uncertainty, compromising, and absorbing feedback.
Faculty also report that incoming students, despite four years of undergraduate education, are “underdeveloped” in these relational or interpersonal skills.
This is a serious crises in higher education and the report calls for a greater need for conflict-resolution training. We need to do a better job training our students to deal with these issues.
These are traditionally the skills students developed in higher education. I loved college because it challenged me, sparked debate, and required me to grapple with complexity. This should be an essential part of college--inside and outside the classroom.
chronicle.com/article/compan…
Milan Račić retweeted
I'd encourage everyone to read the Danish military intelligence assessment in full, and not rely on excitable social media upsums.
Here is the top line: "The Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS) assesses that Russia will intensify its hybrid war by carrying out more frequent attacks against the West and NATO, with greater consequences for the targeted countries than in the past. This could include destructive cyber attacks that cripple critical societal functions as well as sabotage attacks that carry a high risk of casualties."
In other words, Russia will continue doing what it's already doing (terrorist attacks against hard and soft targets, cyberoperations), only more so. This is an uncontroversial assessment across Western intelligence services, so far as I've been able to determine.
DDIS continues: "At the same time, there is a low but growing risk that Russia will launch a limited military attack against one or several NATO countries bordering Russia....Such a limited military attack could take the form of isolated strikes with long‑range weapons on infrastructure that is vital to the support to Ukraine. In this situation, Russia might then claim that the weapons only struck NATO territory because they were jammed by Ukraine. It could also be a so-called false flag operation, where Russia uses Ukrainian‑made drones to attack a NATO country."
The scenario envisaged here (a low but growing risk) is a plausibly deniable conventional attack by Russia. The objective would be twofold. First, to sow panic and confusion in the targeted country or countries, and encourage skepticism of the official government version of what just happened. "Maybe it was the Ukrainians." "Maybe it was an accident." "Maybe no attack took place and the deep state is trying to foment World War III."
Thirty seconds on this hellsite should be enough to convince you that counterfactual narratives would be easy enough to amplify, especially in countries with elections forthcoming. A "limited military attack" psychologically would just be a heightened form of "hybrid" war because it's designed to overwhelm and demoralize the population and make its think that supporting Ukraine just isn't worth it since those not at war are now liable to become collateral damage.
The second objective of such an attack would be to gauge NATO's response to it -- and this is key bit, because, as DDIS also states:
"Russia will likely carry out military attacks only if it assesses that such attacks will not result in a war by triggering a collective NATO military response. However, Russia is likely uncertain about what could trigger such a war. Consequently, there is a risk that Russia assesses that the NATO countries will not respond collectively, especially if Russia assesses that the United States cannot or will not support the European NATO countries in a potential war against Russia." (Italics added.)
You wouldn't be wrong to detect a hint of political messaging here. (All intel services deny they do any such thing but they all do.) This is Denmark, a country that just stared down a possible U.S. invasion and annexation of Greenland, which would have meant the disintegration of NATO.
Trump has spent his entire second term (and much of his first term) doubting the Inviolability of Article V. His Pentagon has given NATO allies questionnaires to fill out to prove their worthiness as allies, while it undergoes a force posture review with ominous media leaks about what Bridge Colby and his minion might do (25,000 U.S. troops withdrawn, a scuppered U.S. base in Poland, etc.)
Now comes a frenzy of intelligence reporting across Europe about a possible Russian attack on NATO, all kickstarted by a CIA briefing delivered to the Poles, Scandinavians and Balts months ago with a warning that they're probably on their own if and when such an attack happens.
Never let a good crisis go to waste... Russia isn't sure what would trigger a war with NATO, so how might NATO make it sure? A "limited military attack" can be deterred if Washington telegraphs its intent to enforce Article V in word and deed by stating clearly and repeatedly what would constitute a casus belli in 2026 and, of course, by keeping U.S. troops in Europe.
Problem is that "Just" is a loaded and manipulated term these days.
While the permit refusal is a problem, it should have been avoided, anticipated or mitigated. I agree, the "force majeure" is a smokescreen for bigger problems at Oracle.
🦔Oracle sent a force majeure notice on Project Jupiter, its AI data center in New Mexico built for the $400 billion Stargate deal with OpenAI. The campus needs a 17-mile gas pipeline to power its Bloom Energy fuel cells. New Mexico denied the pipeline permits twice. Oracle wants the right to delay payments if the site misses its 2028 opening. $18 billion in project loans are at 89 to 91 cents on the dollar. ORCL fell 5%.
My Take
Force majeure is for earthquakes and wars. Oracle filed one over a gas permit they got denied twice. A company with $167 billion in debt and a junk-adjacent credit rating just told its development partner it might not pay on time. I think Oracle's balance sheet is worse than the market has priced in, and this notice is the first public admission.
Twenty banks lent $18 billion for this project and they can't move the debt. Santander and Jefferies are stuck with more than they planned to hold. That loan assumed Oracle's backlog converts to revenue on schedule, but half the backlog is OpenAI, a company that burns cash faster than it earns it. SemiAnalysis has first power at this site in 2029. The banks underwrote 2028. I think the AI infrastructure bet cracks here first, in the loan market, before it ever shows up in stock prices, and the banks who funded the construction are the ones left with the bill.
Hedgie🤗
While the West is sleeping, China is scheming.
Let me tell you how this likely happened
America’s defense corporations are hopelessly exposed to the Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC) in a multitude of ways.
It’s hard to imagine that the same companies that build fighter jets, missiles, and radar for the US and its allies, also depend on official business inside China.
Lockheed Martin, which makes the F-35, has registered entities in the PRC. An “entity” is a legal company such as a subsidiary, a factory, a sales office, or a joint venture. It has a Chinese business license, a Chinese bank account, and has to follow Chinese laws.
The company also employs personnel who are listed on the Chinese state insurance roll. China requires every formal employer to register workers in the national social insurance system so we can see how many personnel inside China they officially employ.
In other words, the Chinese government has a roster of every employee at Lockheed and through the National Security and Data Law, has legal power over the parent company that they work for.
Their physical presence in China creates several types of risks:
> Information risk
People and computers inside China can see designs, shipping schedules, supplier lists, or test data. Chinese law can compel them to share it.
> Leverage risk
Beijing can threaten the local company or its employees (“pay a fine, lose your license, or help us”) to get what it wants from the parent company in the US
> Supply chain risk
Buying metals and parts that China manufactures presents huge vulnerabilities. Combined with local entities and staff, it becomes easier for China to see and squeeze the system
This stolen F-35 cockpit canopy came from Australia, which like Canada, is highly compromised and penetrated.
From South Korea it was diverted to Hong Kong, which sadly is no longer secure as a hub. Commercial tracking data, freight-forwarder systems, and the presence of PRC-linked logistics partners make high-value military shipments visible. Given Lockheed’s legal entities and employees inside the PRC, the intelligence picture gets even clearer.
This is how “they” knew the schedule.
It’s long past due to gut the foothold our defense companies have inside the adversary’s system.
Btw Lockheed Martin, according to our data, is actually a lot less exposed to the PRC than Boeing, RTX (Raytheon) and Honeywell is.
It sure is work. My wife does it with six children and I am amazed at her ability to manage, plan and improvise, while keeping a smile on her face.
Childcare is work. Teaching children is work. Cooking is work. Cleaning is work. Driving people around is work. Managing schedules is work. Taking care of babies is work. Managing a household is work.
But somehow, and for some reason if we combine all of these things into just one woman, if we combine all of these jobs to one woman, to just one house, with children who live there and call her Mom, then people suddenly start asking, “What does she even do all day?”
You’d never ask this of any of those professions. It is only mothers at home that have this extra burden of proof, that somehow we need to justify extra hard that we indeed are productive members of society, that we indeed work hard, that we indeed do things all day long.
The only difference in all of this is that women at home do this work for the people they love, instead of for people who pay her, and that should make the work more valuable, not less.
The proof is in the pudding, or in this case the revenue.
It's hard to say which of these infographics is more worrying. For me, it's the monthly revenue discrepancy between AI businesses based in the US and EU.
As we have similar populations, the revenue gap tells the whole tale of how EU countries make it hard to build large-scale technology businesses.
Some great info here in Patrick Collison's post.
Some data we recently assembled on entrepreneurship/compute in Europe: eudata.vercel.app.
We hope that one of the useful roles that Stripe can play is in collecting and publishing empirical data pertaining to entrepreneurship and industry in Europe. There's growing appetite to get Europe on a better footing, and cross-sectional comparisons can often shine light on where opportunities lie. If you're interested in this kind of thing, we publish more at stripeeconomics.substack.com.
Milan Račić retweeted
Javier Milei hoy en su discurso ante la Asamblea General de la ONU en Nueva York
Calificó a las Naciones Unidas de “inútil” y afirmó que “solo sirve para alimentar a una casta de parásitos fatalmente arrogantes, disfrazados de burócratas bienintencionados”.
¡Por favor que lo inviten a la Unión Europea para que diga lo mismo!
This photo is the first thing I saw on my computer this morning. Stunning.
Extraordinary scene in the Atacama desert of South America.
Historically one of the world's driest locations has been completely transformed by heavy El Nino rain, leading to the proliferation of stunning flowers from long-dormant seeds.
ALT https://www.theatlantic.com/photography/2026/09/photos-wildflowers-bloom-atacama-desert/688728/
But is dumber or smarter. It was a low baseline to start with.
My latest for @TheEconomist: AI writing is taking over politics.
10% of what was is said in Parliament is now AI-drafted, per Pangram. Yet more in the House of Representatives, or in Australia and Canada.
Link: economist.com/britain/2026/0…
And a 🧵 below, w/ some main offenders
Milan Račić retweeted
Really nice report. Follow up: why has the fall in AI prices been so fast?
When you plot the price decline against cumulative R&D investment rather than time, you get the elasticity of price declines to R&D investment. By this margin, AI is not unusual – its price elasticity to R&D investment is squarely in the middle of Epoch's considered technologies.
So the AI price fall is historically unprecedented because we've dumped money into AI R&D at a historically unprecedented rate – and that R&D has paid off at a very average rate.
Makes one wonder if the G20 invitation to Putin is a quid pro quo for the Russian oligarch footing the bill for Donald Jr's wedding.
The other G20 leaders should boycott the meeting - if they have any integrity.
Milan Račić retweeted
In the modern West, thrift stores have largely become graveyards for obsolete plastic junk and broken blenders.
Products are manufactured to break in three years, and discarded goods are treated like garbage.
Step inside a suburban Hard-Off or Second Street in Japan, and you enter a museum of mechanical devotion.
Along the audio shelves, Pioneer tube amplifiers from 1974, Marantz receivers, and vintage Fender Stratocasters gleam under warm lighting.
Not a single grain of dust rests on the aluminum dials.
Every piece has been disassembled, cleaned with specialized contact cleaner, tested on an oscilloscope, and neatly shrink-wrapped.
On the front is a handwritten inspection tag written by a store technician.
It does not try to hide flaws. It lists them with obsessive honesty:
"Left channel output stable. Right potentiometer has minor scratch noise at low volume. Belt replaced on August 12. Three-month full refund warranty."
Someone loved this machine for forty years.
And the people selling it believe it is their moral obligation to ensure the next owner loves it for forty more.
It is the honest mercantile ethic that once built small-town America, practiced here with religious precision.
Milan Račić retweeted
A CS undergrad asked me where he could have most effect in the AI age. I said probably at either extreme: either close to the technology, actually making LLMs, or close to the customer, using AI to give them exactly what they want. Or maybe both if you can stretch that far.
Milan Račić retweeted
Fun fact: Sweden has four nuclear reactors that have each generated more electricity than all Danish wind turbines ever.
Forsmark 3 and Oskarshamn 3 started in 1985, the year Denmark banned nuclear. Both still ahead of Denmark’s entire wind fleet.
I keep warning our kids about this fate, they laugh. However, in one-on-one conversations I can see that they are noticing the same.
Soy profesor universitario y considero importante compartir lo que me está tocando ver desde que arrancó el curso, porque es un verdadero desastre.
Esta generación de estudiantes lleva IA, YouTube, Google y toda la información del planeta en el móvil y siguen sin saber nada.
No saben dónde está Roma ni tampoco Huelva, no saben quién es Pérez Revere pero todos conocen a Lola Lolita, no tienen ni idea de historia pero sí de “stories”, no entienden el valor del dinero ni saben cómo funciona la inflación.
Antes, para ser ignorante bastaba con no abrir los libros. Ahora, asisten activamente a clases para no enterarse de nada.
Y encima son de cristal. Cualquier roce es un trauma, cualquier crítica es violencia, cualquier tarea es un atentado y cualquier suspenso es un «ataque» a su salud mental. Y si llueve no vienen a clases, no sea que se derritan.
Han convertido los retos normales de la vida en un espectáculo de victimismo. En lugar aprender a gestionar los problemas que van saliendo en sus vidas, han aprendido a pedir soluciones a los demás y a deprimirse si algo no sale bien.
Tantos años de progresismo abyecto ha resultado en esto, y después de años viviendo entre algodón, sin golpes y sin aprender a levantarse, han creado una generación de ofendiditos con mentes vacías que todavía intentan averiguar qué son.
Eso sí, opinan sobre cualquier tema con una convicción, una superioridad moral y una pasión que asusta, pero con argumentos huecos y no sustentados que son el producto del lavado de cerebro que han recibido de la narrativa woke que han venido escuchando los últimos años.
Si no fuese por ese puñado de estudiantes (con futuro) cuyos padres se preocuparon en formarlos con valores y principios, sería esta, una generación prácticamente perdida.
You heard that Juan Perón destroyed Argentina's economy, but what actually happened?
Perón nationalized Argentina's central bank in March 1946 and handed price-setting power over beef and wheat exports to a state agency called IAPI. That single move strangled the two industries that fed the country.
IAPI bought grain from farmers at prices it set, then sold that grain on world markets at actual prices, pocketing the spread. Farmers received roughly half the international price for wheat throughout the late 1940s. They responded the only rational way: they planted less. Cattle ranchers faced identical incentives and reduced their herds. Argentina's beef exports fell from 400,000 tons in 1946 to under 200,000 tons by 1952.
The central bank nationalization meant Perón controlled credit allocation directly. He flooded industry with cheap loans while agriculture starved of capital. Foreign exchange reserves accumulated before 1946 were gone by 1952.
The price signal is the only tool an economy has to communicate scarcity and opportunity across millions of producers simultaneously. Suppress that signal in two of your most productive sectors and output collapses.
By 1955, when the military removed Perón, Argentina's share of world wheat trade had collapsed from a dominant position to near irrelevance. A country that once fed Europe had engineered its own agricultural decline through deliberate, economically illiterate, socialist policy.
Agree - "As AI makes technical execution easier, the premium may shift to people who can ask the right questions, think critically, connect ideas across disciplines, understand history and human behavior, and see what’s worth pursuing in the first place."
One of the most interesting arguments about the #AI age comes from Anthropic cofounder Jack Clark, who studied literature and creative writing—not computer science in college.
His point: As AI makes technical execution easier, the premium may shift to people who can ask the right questions, think critically, connect ideas across disciplines, understand history and human behavior, and see what’s worth pursuing in the first place.
In other words, the skills we once dismissed as “soft” may become some of the hardest—and most valuable—skills to replace.
All kinds of evidence of this already.
#Leadership #HR #SHRM #FutureOfWork #LeadFromTheHeart