Shreyas Hariharan

Popper's solution to the paradox of tolerance: to maintain a tolerant society, we should be intolerant of intolerance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance …

An argument without any examples or analogies might be dry to read but is evidence of pure logical reasoning.

Hoppers typically don't say yes to a plan because they want to keep their options open. They don't attend events, they swing by them.

Hoppers: my word for the class of people at parties who are having a conversation with you but are always itching to hop to another person. They're not hopping because they're bored but because they have a constant sense that there's something better out there.

.@AnnieDuke: 1/ When an investment has lost money, still ask the question "should we have lost more", i.e. should we have sized it bigger based on what we knew then? 2/ When an investment has made money, still ask the question "should we have won less", i.e. sized it smaller?

Many popular ideological disagreements can be boiled down to the disagreement about whether progress has ended or can continue.

If aliens came up with math, would they have the the same abstractions that we have?

Great, succinct essay by @ArtirKel on the tiers of economic insight https://nintil.com/the-pyramid-of-economic-insight-and-virtue/ …

Monopolies don't get competed away; their industries just become less relevant. Intel still has dominance over microprocessors, Microsoft over PC operating systems, Exxon over oil; they're all just less relevant.

One advantage of an original thought, even if you just think it's original, is that you have more ownership over acting on it.

Americans distinguish a kayak vs. canoe vs. yacht vs. boat; non-Americans call everything a boat.

I think Black Mirror would be more interesting if it wasn't as consistently dystopian. But the counter to this is what science fiction writer Frederik Pohl said: “A good science fiction story should be able to predict not the automobile but the traffic jam.”

If a couple is arguing and one person says, "you are bad at x", and the other person responds, "you are horrible at y", they are competing for dominance.

If a couple is arguing and one person says "I was hurt when you said x", and the other responds, "I was even more hurt when you said y", they are competing for sympathy.

Gandhi's technique works if you're dealing with people who at least slightly care about sympathy (e.g. British); it may not have worked if Gandhi was dealing with Hitler.

Two popular techniques people unintentionally resort to during conflicts are sympathy displays (Gandhi's technique) and dominance displays (Trump's technique). Sympathy display: you have hurt me more than I hurt you. Dominance display: I can hurt you more than you can hurt me.

"If you have a headache and I take a knife and stab you, you don't have a headache anymore." - @thevirdas on how Chyawanprash makes you feel better.

Article 67 of North Korea's constitution: "Citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, demonstration and association." http://www2.law.columbia.edu/course_00S_L9436_001/North%20Korea%20materials/98091708.htm …https://twitter.com/ChipkinLogan/status/1219290825571565569?s=19 …

@visakanv, @webdevMason, @naval, @TheAnnaGat, @yashkaf, @balajis - would love to get any of your thoughts on this