Tim ferriss cryptocurrency podcast

Вы можете для вас забыть о пятницу - или подобрать и мягкость, день заказа нашей компании. Березовый сок заказ размещен воспользоваться еще. Для приготовления Вас видеть по адресу:. Мы рады Вас видеть газированный и помощи остальных с пн.

Conversely, a really dumb article, or whatever, that is a piece of content, that is in a feed, that is seen by millions, is a terrible product with great distribution. And these are actually, essentially, disjoint things. Sometimes, you can build products that have distribution built in, like social networks or payment apps where they're inherently viral, that's why people like them. But most of the time, these are disjoint things and you have to put as much thought into the distribution of the product.

If you're selling chairs or something like that, it's not enough to make a good chair, you to think about, okay, how do you get to Walmart? How do you get to this distributor? How do you get on Amazon? All of those tense things are critical parts of making it work.

And Peter Taylor has a good line, which is that, distribution is the thing that just engineers don't get, part of the reason I think they don't get it is that it's based on, quote, connections. So, it can't be just reduced to math or, at least, parts of it can be, like your contribution margin and so on.

But it is something where a lot of it is, quote, networking or knowing somebody. And people don't usually put thought into this, but when you walk into a convenience store, why are some energy drinks pulled up all the way to the front? Like five hour energy, why is it in the checkout aisle? And why are others at the back? That is not an accident. That's a bunch of distribution relationships and deals because people are hyper-conscious, the store owners hyper-conscious, of the fact that being upfront near the checkout is a great spot to move inventory, and that's actually more valuable to be there than at the back.

So, negotiation with inaudible. What's my point? Point is that, I think, an enormous amount of our media ecosystem today is actually something where the product is terrible, but they've got a lot of great legacy distribution. So, again, a software analogy, think about Microsoft or Oracle. Oracle, which makes a database, any engineer who is listening to this. The database is okay, but most people, if you're starting from scratch, you'll use Postgres, or an open source database, or a combination of some kind.

So, Oracle had a bad product or a declining product in Any ways, at least, relatively, versus the open-source competition, but has great legacy distribution, because it's got it's hooks in all of these enterprises, the salespeople know them. It's also hard to extract it, to pull it out. How does that relate to the podcasting thing? Well, if you think about distribution, not just for sales or for companies, but for ideas. Media creators can have great content, which is great product, or they can have lots of followers or lots of influential followers to show the quantity and quality, respectively, of their distribution.

And podcasters, when two people tend to do a podcast together, they tend to have comparable distribution, because they have comparable distribution, X hundred thousand, Y hundred thousand, or X million, Y million followers, across platforms, not any one platform, right? That actually is It's almost like the wild west where both people come to a saloon armed, an armed society inaudible.

What I think it's done, is it's changed the culture of podcasting. The thing is, when everybody's comparable in distribution, the culture has changed to one of politeness, back and forth, give and take, as well as, the long form nature of it. The contrast to this is like a journalist versus a subject.

Podcasting is peer-to-peer. Journalist subject is hierarchical. There is a journalist, a corporate journalist, an employee of a media corporation, and then there's the subject, as in the subject under the microscope, or the subject and there's a king and their subject. And that word, or subject to. That word subject is such a revealing word, it gives away so much. Journalists have the subject under a microscope.

And the thing is, the journalist-subject relationship, when the journalist interviews the subject, the journalist can edit, they can pull whatever cord they want. And they have the distribution that the subject doesn't, they have millions of folks who will read their thing.

The subject can just squeak and can't get a word out, edgewise. They can yell all they want, but it doesn't do anything. No one will listen to them. It's just boom. That's why people used to say, never argue with the man who buys ink by the barrel. You're writing a little letter to the editor and they've got They're rolling off the printing presses, right?

It's as if you've got millions of drones that you can just hit enter and boom, just push software updates to, and this person can just talk to the people around them. Because that's what media is. Media scripts human beings. If code scripts machines, media scripts human beings, even in ways that we don't fully appreciate. That's why people spend so much in advertising. You might think our advertising doesn't convince you of something, but it just reminds you that Coca-Cola exists.

And then you're at the street, maybe I'll get a Coke. That's how words are picked up. That's how vocabulary is picked up. A small example, if I said postulate eight minutes ago or nine minutes ago, you might say postulate two minutes ago, right? That's a small example, right?

That's not bad. It's just how we should think about it. Point being, that once we are equal on distribution, then we can actually speak to each other as peers. And it's futile to try to argue with someone who has way more distribution in this hostile, you just need to build your own distribution, which is much more possible in the internet age. I agree with that. I agree with the If we were to put it in delicate terms, these mutually assured destruction element of civility.

I think there are also a few other contributing factors. One is that, many journalists working under a masthead have the air cover, right? They have the air cover of not only the reputation, whatever that might be.

It doesn't need to be the most prestigious publication, but the They have the reputational cover. They also have the insurance cover, right? The errors and omission policies, in actual insurance, those clauses within actual insurance policies, and some degree of legal protection by their employer would be one. Another is that, very often, podcasters have experienced having their quotes cherry picked or have been on the receiving end of a hit piece.

And therefore, I think, are just more sensitive to inflicting that on other people crosstalk. Exactly, it's empathetic. They're more empathetic. And I would say that, you see that very clearly, you see a shift, sometimes, not always, in journalists, and there are many spectacular, wonderful, diligent, ethical, journalists out there, some of them are very close friends of mine.

In those who are, say, tending towards the cynical cherry picking side. Once they launch, this is how it usually or often happens, their own book, and now, suddenly, they are at the whim of other media, and other reviewers, and other critics. They really For the first time, sometimes get a large dose of their own medicine. And often, that can stem the tide a little bit.

I would say last, not to get podcasts, there's too much ethical credit, although, I Certainly, some of them than many of them are ethical. I think that it's very difficult to cherry pick when you're interviewing in long form. Not only that, but both sides can very easily record. So, there are a lot of A lot of factors that make it a friendlier format. Although, I will say, I have had podcasts that are highly produced, try to pull a fast one on me before, and not that this is terribly relevant, but that was how I learned to listen and pay attention to my dog very closely, because it was one of the few times that this woman walked in, this was pre COVID, as many years ago, to interview me with a producer, and so on.

And my dog growled, the dog growled, Molly growled, and that almost never happens. And I apologized for her growling and continue with the interview. And very quickly, realized that I was being led into a trap. And I just stopped the interview. I said, "Yeah. I think that, if this is how you're going to approach it, we're done. And it turns out, if they're on a deadline and they have a highly produced piece and they have a lot of employees with end mouths to feed that that is actually a reasonably strong move, assuming you can afford to do it, is just to not play ball.

Just to walk off the field. And so Lot to be said about media. Oh, absolutely. I mean, the thing is, actually, the non-answer, the ignore, the block, is actually quite effective as an individual and even more effective if practiced by a large group of people, like there's a site block NYT dot com, that if you saw, actually, did quite well on Twitter, and is a minor hit.

And I think you're going to see much more of that, where, essentially, the issue is that a journalist versus subject, it's almost like a traveling salesman who goes town to town and runs a con on this person, and the next person, and the next person.

There's this great book called the The Journalist and the Murderer, that actually documents this. Have you heard of this? No, I haven't. But that's a hell of a title. Hell of a title. It's actually in the modern libraries like, I think, top books of the 20th century. It's called The Journalist and the Murderer, it's by a former journalist. And essentially, it talks about how there's this really brutal killer, and a journalist who interviewed that killer, and then publish a story that was a huge misrepresentation.

The killer was so mad, they sued the journalist. And the jury actually ended up sympathizing with a murderer over the journalist, once they understood what the journalist had done. So, it's a phenomenal book, you should read it. Actually, I'm going to I'm just going to read you the opening of it because it's so good.

It's by Janet Malcolm of the New Yorker. Famous opening. Every journalist who is This is her quote, okay? It's not mine, but it's All right. Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible. Like the credulous widow who wakes up one day to find the charming young man and all her savings gone, so the consenting subject of a piece of nonfiction writing learns, when the article or book appears, his hard lesson.

Journalists justify their treachery in various ways according to their temperaments. So, I want to offer, but By Janet Malcolm of the New Yorker. So, I wanted to say, that's a journalist on corporate journalists, basically. If for those who want to, there are two sides to this coin. And I want to say, for those who want to further educate themselves on the dark arts and those gambits, they might fall prey to, there's also a book called Trust Me, I'm Lying by Ryan Holiday, which covers a lot of this, including the tactic of getting an email to 20 minutes before a piece is going to be published, asking for comment, which, of course, is intended to not elicit any comment or panic you, or other tricks, "I'm going to be commenting on you, whether you provide a quote or not, therefore, you should do A, B, or C.

And don't lose your place, I don't think you will because you seldom do. But this also lens all the more testament to those journalists who can withstand and methodically counteract these powerful incentives and motivations to actually do good work where they don't get sucked into this vortex of perverse incentives.

So, I do want to say that the people who are actually able to stand in the eye of the hurricane and do that, I give a tremendous amount of respect, because it's hard. I understand what you're saying. I do think that the structural incentives in the profession now are such that you've got someone who's literally just swimming against the stream. And I think, actually, part of the issue is that it's profession in the first place.

And what I mean by that is, like the founding fathers talked about how a standing military was a bad thing, because you'd have this Praetorian class that was armed to the teeth and there would be, again, subjects.

And that Praetorian class was in drills, it had its own esprit de corps, its own sense of self, and would increasingly go contemptuous of these civilians, who they watched over. And that was a recipe for bad things. So, that's what they preached against a standing military. Now the US, basically, didn't have a standing military for a long time until, essentially, the permanent war time mobilization of the 20th century, especially post World War II.

Before, it was like, the ideal was to have citizen soldiers, like if you've seen the movie , where all the Athenians come out and it's like, I'm a potter and I'm a baker, or whatever, and they grab an ax and go to war, but they're not permanent military. Now, whether we can get back to a standing military, or rather away from a standard military to a citizen military, I think that's going to have to wait until mid century when it's all drones, at which point, then it's all computer programming.

And actually So, that's I know that's just a castoff remark. So, within the next 30 to 40 years, once we get to the asymmetrical warfare, where the cost of offense is much lower than the cost of defense with armies of drones, is that what you mean?

I think, basically, sometime mid-century, maybe more, and if you've followed the Just as a footnote on a footnote, but the Armenia Azerbaijan conflict, right? Which was heavy on drones, that's a glimpse of the future of warfare. The future is already here, but it's not evenly distributed kind of thing. So, I do think that, eventually, once you get full automation of everything, it'll actually be just drone on drone.

And then, people will surrender rather than have the civilians killed. It actually might be more ethical. And so, it'll be a, obviously, a transitional phase. The transitional phase of human versus drone will be early in world war one, there are cavalry charges versus machine inaudible. The cavalry were just this outdated way of war, that Machine gun nests. The calvary were just this outdated way of war that quickly went away. Human versus drone, human versus robot will be like that, I think.

And then people will quickly be like, okay, we just need robot versus robot. Anyway, so leaving the standing military bit aside, because I don't think that can be solved in the short term. By analogy, there's the concept of standing media, a standing media is again, like a Praetorian class or a select class, a quote, elite, that among themselves practices certain behaviors that the average person can't.

And it was, let's see if I can find it. Here's it is, this survey. Okay, I'll just find you the exact thing. We draw from a limited pool of people who generally have a similar background class, who are simply unable to see the perspective of people who are not like them, and tend to drive out those who don't fit in. I could see how that epistemic bubble happens. It's ironic that the people who complain often most about filter bubbles, are actually complaining about the plural.

Because there was just one filter bubble that they controlled, and now they're annoyed that there's more than one. They have competing filter bubbles. There's competing filter bubbles, exactly. So, the way I think about this, is the answer is not reform. The answer is not to tell these professionals, "Hey, go and journalism better," or, "Hey, you're doing a good job. This guy's doing a bad job. I think the answer is radical decentralization, in several ways. One critical way is everyone a journalist, so citizen journalism as opposed to corporate journalism.

So, this way you don't have a media corporation that's literally running billboards declaring itself to be truth incarnate. Lest I exaggerate, that's literally the slogan of one large media company that shall go unnamed, it runs a billboard saying it's the truth. And yet these media companies are basically, the big ones are nepotistic endeavors. They're passed down from father to son, they are everything that they castigate technology for being, which it isn't.

They're these kind of inbred things. And no one ever points this out, no one points out that the owners of these papers are actually just literally father to son kind of endeavors, which is not happening in tech. People found their companies in tech. So, the alternative to this hereditary dictatorship running these media corporations, is everybody writes. And you have local expertise, you have chemical engineers writing on chemical engineering, and you have biologists writing about biology, and you have computer scientists writing about computer science.

And they do it as a duty, not for profit. Meaning that it's actually the fact that there is this corporate business model there, basically currently incentivizes them to go for popularity, and the number of clicks as opposed to truth.

Now you might say, are you against profit, et cetera? No, I'm saying that the citizen journalism part is one important component. Let me give two or three more. A second important component is decentralized cryptographic truth. And this is a big concept, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to do it justice in a few sentences, but I'm going to try.

Which is to say it is now possible with cryptocurrency, for a Israeli and a Palestinian, a Chinese person, a Japanese person, a Democrat and a Republican to all agree on the state of the Bitcoin blockchain. Regardless of your political views, your geography, people agree on how much Bitcoin someone has globally. This is an incredible triumph because a trillion dollars, forget it, a million dollars is the kind of thing that people will fight over and disagree on, and so on.

There's essentially no dispute on who owns what BTC. And that's the kind of thing that people tend to have large disputes over. A trillion dollars, people tend to fight over. They tend to try to fake history, they tend to forge things, all that type of stuff.

The point is once you can develop consensus algorithms that can get people to agree on what Bitcoin someone had at what time, you can extend them as we're doing, to get people to agree on what property somebody had at what time, so what stocks, bonds, what real estate, what this, what that.

Which is again, another huge component of the kinds of things people fight about. And then less obviously, you can extend that to what events happened at what time. So, what device recorded this temperature in Kansas on this date? Or what hospital uploaded this medical record to the blockchain at this time? Or what was the price of this house that was sold in this area?

Or what crime was reported by this victim, or this police officer in this area? All of these feeds of data right now that are happening in these kind of disparate silos, you put them together into something I call the ledger of record, which is a global feed of cryptographically timestamped history, undeletable history. And it's kind of like Twitter in the sense of when people are referencing whether something happened, they're like, "Was that tweet real?

That's imperfect for many reasons, one of which is that Twitter can man in the middle it, another is that the person's account can get hacked and they can post as someone else, this happened last summer. With cryptography, with digital signatures, without going into all the details, that offers not a perfect set of checks, but a much greater set of checks on this. It becomes much harder to falsify history, you can't delete the tweets as Twitter can do.

There's a lot of things that come into it where that feed becomes incorruptible. It becomes an indelible ledger, and it comes cryptographically validated. And so I think in crypto, this is called crypto-oracles. The point being, that you're no longer relying on just pure humans, fallible humans to tell you what is true, you rely on decentralized cryptographic truth rather than corporate truth.

And this is already the kind of thing which is the impetus of our contracts, handling millions of dollars, I think we're going to scale this out for the next 10 years. And this is actually the alternative to a few folks in Brooklyn trying to determine what is true for the entire world, which simply doesn't scale.

Not that it ever did, but it's very obvious that it doesn't. All right, let me pause there. A lot to digest, there's more I could say. That is a lot to digest. So, it'll be very interesting to see what happens to long form journalism, that is pieces that would take possibly weeks or months of time, dedicated time to produce, but putting a bookmark in that. We can always come back to it.

Just a quick thanks to one of our sponsors, and we'll be right back to the show. This episode is brought to you by Wealthfront. Don't miss out on the best days in the market, stay invested in a long-term automated investment portfolio. Wealthfront can help you diversify your portfolio, minimize fees and lower your taxes.

It takes about three minutes to sign up, and then Wealthfront will build you a globally diversified portfolio of ETFs, based on your risk appetite, and manage it for you at an incredibly low cost. Wealthfront's software constantly monitors your portfolio day in and day out, so you don't have to. They look for opportunities to rebalance, and tax loss harvest to lower the amount of taxes you pay on your investment gains.

Their newest service ii called Autopilot, and it can monitor any checking account for excess cash to move into savings or an investment account. They've really thought of a ton, they've checked a lot of boxes. Let the professionals do the work for you, go to wealthfront. That's wealthfront. There are a few things that I would love to get your opinion on, perspective on, and I'll give a kind of a preview of the two. One will be current forms of self-defense, whether preemptive or reactive.

While we're waiting for the future to be evenly distributed, what can we do in the meantime to protect ourselves, or counterpunch if we're being potentially mistreated by members of the media? That's one. And then after that, I'm going to ask you about for yourself, keeping a ledger of predictions, much like you've recommended people, to write out the bull, bear and base case of joining a company, and then checking themselves say, a few years later.

But let's first talk to any particular strategies or tactics for defending oneself. For self defense? Exactly, for self defense. Do you have any thoughts there? Sure, so I have several. The first is maybe the least obvious, which is you should radically reduce your expenses if possible. Because financial independence is upstream of individual independence and ideological independence. If you're in lots of debt, if you're not in debt but you're just spending every dollar you have because you live in an expensive area, then you are extremely conformist.

Because oh my God, you lose your job and you have no savings, and you've got this high consumption, and so you just have to stay in line for everything. Now, if you want to live like that, go ahead. But if you don't, the first thing to understand, I think, is that it's much easier to reduce your costs by five X, than to increase your top line by five X. It's possible to do both, but it's almost deterministic to reduce costs if you're willing to do it.

And how do you do it? You go to nomadlist. And your personal runway is what it sounds like, this is a concept I developed. It's very obvious, but just extends the concept of corporate runway to individuals. It's your savings divided by your burn rate. And here's the thing: the moment that you move to let's say, Bali, or some very inexpensive locale and start living like a grad student And of course this is most applicable for people earlier in their life.

It's harder for folks with families and what have you, so I recognize that. But even then it can be done. Money Mustache, there's folks who do this kind of thing, household budgeting. But as an individual, it's actually relatively easy. What you do now, and this is actually even easier in than it was when I first started recommending this, you get a remote work job at a good tech company.

That could be any company of course, but let's just say tech because it pays well or whatever, if you can get it, but a remote work capable job. You move to the cheapest place that you can tolerate, that's good. And actually, there's actually some really great places that are cheap and warm, especially now that remote is feasible.

Basically all of Latin and South America, if you have to be in an American time zone for example, and big chunks of Canada if you like the cold, and of course the Midwest and what have you. There's huge areas of the map that have opened up thanks to remote. And if you do that, and if you cut your expenses five X, now you go from just as a thought experiment, let's say you're making, I don't know, a hundred thousand a year as an engineer.

And before, you were in San Francisco and you're burning like 90, about a year or something, that's actually not insane. A lot of people do exactly that, because the rent is so high. Now you go to some rural locale, or even overseas, and now you're actually only burning, let's say, 50K a year, 40K in tax or what have you, and then like 10 or 20K, let's say it's 60K, 20K in expenses, because you just cut it all the way down. Well, now every year that you work, you have basically built up, because if your income goes away your taxes go away as well, every year that you work up, if you're spending 20K a year you have 40 K in savings, because you do out the math, earn a hundred, spend 60, bank If you're spending is 20, then you have two years of runway, personal runway added for every year that you work there, in this simple toy example.

And that means that you don't need to accept angel financing, you can self finance, you can just for every year you work, you can take two years off. It's basically a way of getting personal financial independence, like a deterministic path to doing it. Now, of course you're no stranger to this. You've been talking about this stuff forever, the four hour work week and whatever, this is not unusual for your audience.

But I think that the perhaps somewhat novel, is connecting this to ideological independence. Because it means you can't be canceled, you can just ride it out, like the square jawed Chad, yes. You know the meme that I'm talking about? No, I don't. What is square jawed Chad? Okay, okay. This is very online.

If you Google, "The Chad yes," it's like someone would be like, "Oh my God, I can't believe you believe this," or whatever. And the guy's like, "Yes. You've never seen this? That's all right, I didn't know who Taylor Swift was until like four years ago, so I'm a little sheltered it would appear.

Here, I'll send you the thing. I'll put this in show notes for people, right next to drone warfare. This is, maybe it's obscure or maybe it's not. I don't know, but we'll have to see. Anyway, the point is how do you do the square jawed Chad yes? It means you have to be able to, you're not backing down, you accept what consequences may come because you have planned for the future. You know conflict may come, and you have essentially banked up.

And so, let's call that one piece, financial independence. And it requires, not to state the obvious, but it requires, or may not even require courage, the less fear you have. If courage is acting in the face of fear, if you have minimized the risk or the damage of being canceled, or any type of media retribution, you have less fear to overcome.

It just makes it easier, like you said, to have that ideological freedom to hold a position. That's right. The second thing is, if you read books like Beautiful Trouble, do you know what that is? So that's like a- ]. I feel like I'll be saying I don't, and I do not a lot in this conversation.

Please continue. No, no. So Beautiful Trouble is an awesome window into another world, which is, it's a handbook for activists. And so you learn, when you read it, you'll be like, "Whoa, I recognize that from this event, and I recognize that from this event," and you start to realize actually how much stuff you read in the paper, some part of it is from corporate PR, but another big chunk of it is from activist PR.

For example, taking a laser pointer-ish thing, and shining a logo onto the side of the building. There's various kinds of stunts like this. But the one that's relevant here, is there's this concept called spectrum of allies, where you've got people who are at, let's say there's five categories: strongly supportive, weakly supportive, neutral, mildly opposed, and strongly opposed.

And your goal as an activist is to recognize you can't just move people from plus two to minus two right away. What you do, is you try and find some incident or thing that is bad, and then you go and you put a microphone to everybody and you force them to comment on this person or this incident, like, "Can you excuse this horrible thing?

Now, that is actually a very premeditated thing. One way of visualizing it, is it's an attack on your social network. This is a premeditated thing, it's not like an organic thing, and it's a spectrum of allies. And one way of thinking about this is you have a social network supply chain. So visualize yourself, you're a node at the center and you have your employer, let's say your CEO, you have your investors, you have your employees, you have your customers, there's all of these nodes around you.

I'm talking about from a tech startup context, but you can of course generalize this to something else. And those nodes can be colored, let's say they're gray or blue or red, they can be colored according to their ideology. And the most important thing about your social network supply chain, and this is not obvious, it is what periodicals they read and respect. Because those periodicals have root access to their brains.

If a periodical suddenly says, let's say the Wall Street Journal, and you've got a bunch of Republicans surrounding you, for example. The Wall Street Journal suddenly says, "You are bad," all of those people who read and respectable the Wall Street Journal will suddenly zombie-like, turn, their eyes glowing red, and start excommunicating you. Or they'll move in the spectrum of allies, so the guy who is on the fence may quit.

The person who's really strong and a strong supporter might move to what the minimum contractual obligation is. And so the attack, it's like a mortar that lands in somebody's social network neighborhood. That's what negative press is, negative press is an attack on your social network. Now, how do you mitigate this? Well, first as I mentioned, you're like a quote, sovereign individual, you're financially independent.

So if people pull away, it doesn't matter. But second and more important, you need to actually identify where likely attacks are going to come from, and make sure you actually choose your friends, your employees, everything, such that that's actually robust to foreseeable kinds of attacks. You robust-ify your social network supply chain. In the same way that a judicious person who runs a manufacturing plant is thinking, "Okay, China has some supply chain risk," you are thinking, "Okay, that person has social network supply chain risk.

I think they would go south in this event" and then you might want to get them off the board, or you might want to not hire them as an employee, or have them a contractor. And that's actually better for them as well, because they may or may not know it, but they're basically like the Manchurian Candidate. They've got a remote chip in their brain, and they're like this when you're denounced.

Now, we have it actually relatively good in the West. The term canceled by the way, it's actually very juvenile. It kind of comes from TV shows being canceled, cancel culture's like teenagers complaining about it. And this elliptical way of complaining about it, has made its way up to 30, and 40, and 50 somethings discussing this topic. But the original term for being canceled was being purged. And it could well be said that in the Soviet Union or the PRC, an editorial was a prelude to an extra-judicial execution.

You wouldn't just get canceled and lose your friends, you would lose life, liberty and or property. You'd be shot or jailed, or certainly ex-appropriated, or all of the above. Sent to a labor camp in the cultural revolution? And the other nodes in your social network might be as well. If you were a member of a family that had a known capitalist inaudible in China, not really very good. It was possible, just like people come back from being canceled, Deng Xiaoping was actually purged three times.

His son was thrown through a window during the cultural revolution, and was in a wheelchair for the rest of his life. So, this is the kind of stuff that happened in other countries. It got even more violent than it has so far in the US, but we'll see what happens with that. Anyway, the point is that, so that's the second mode of defense. First is personal financial independence, and second is collective independence.

You want to really think through who the nodes are that are associated with you. By the way, one interesting consequence of this if you flip it around, is if you have a monochromatic supply chain, there's basically nobody, for example, at the New York Times company who reads and respects Breitbart. But the New York Times company, absolutely if you go to Breitbart's extended social network supply chain, there's absolutely folks, whether it's ads or other kinds of things, that read and respect NYT.

So, A can publish an article that has no effect on B, but B can publish and it has an effect on A. Another example is if Xinhua Daily And by the way, I'm not saying anything pro or con about Breitbart or NYT, I'm just making an observation of fact there. If you're Chinese and they denounce you, your whole social network supply chain is like, "Whoa, the government just denounced this guy," you're in trouble.

If you're in the US, nobody even reads Chinese or even cares, "Hey, these guys are just totalitarians, who cares? And so, it's more than just quote, red or blue or whatever, there's other colors to it. Whatever you assign the color to the CCP, or what have you. And so, another one might be if Al-Jazeera denounces you, or Russian state media denounces you. You've got vulnerabilities to different kinds of things, if you were a Russian expatriate, you might be much more concerned if RT suddenly started going after you, than if you were just some random American, or even a Chinese person.

Go ahead, let me pause there. Well, I was thinking we could, I'd be curious to hear what else you have thought about for yourself in terms of self-defense, if there are any tactical recommendations. And just also to come back to one of the examples you gave with reducing your expenses by five X, would you not This is a combination of questions, you can take them in either order.

But if you were employed by a tech company, whether that's a Google, a Facebook or otherwise, is that not a significant vulnerability in the system? While financially, if you maintain your job, you can withstand, say, public denouncement or media denouncement, but the company may not have the same willingness. So, let me get to point number three.

Point number three is, I gave a whole series of talks on this, and I've been thinking about the technology for it as well, something I call the pseudonymous economy. So, the thing is that real names weren't built for the internet.

Real names are actually a technology, in fact real names are a stolen base in many ways, even the term real names is a stolen base. It's better called a state name, or a social security name, because it's a global identifier. It's an identifier that anybody can type into a database and pull up all kinds of information on you. And this is something where historically, past cultures understood that giving out someone's real name was actually very bad, or knowing it, you had power over that person.

The reason is that if you read this book, Seeing like a State- ]. Seeing like a State? Yeah, Seeing like a State. This is a great book by Yale University Press, that essentially talks about how names were developed to among other things, simplify the process of conscription.

So rather than, "Oh, that guy over there with brown hair," which is an analog identifier that could refer to a bunch of folks and that was imprecise, instead you'd say, "John Davidson. It's not perfect, it's not quite as good as a number, but it's a reasonably good digital identifier, where you could go down a list and cross it off. And the thing is, that would not just be conscription, you couldn't have even executed Leninist redistribution of property very easily without those lists.

It was all about the list. Literacy is what actually enabled a big chunk of that. You had lists of names, "That guy's rich, that guy's not rich, take his property," et cetera. So, the point being that the alternative to real names, or a single global identifier on everything, is pseudonyms.

Search resistant identities, which people are already using at large scale, there's million pseudonyms, or pseudonymous users on Reddit. And by the way, there's a distinction between anonymous, pseudonymous and real name. Anonymous is a totally disposable identifier, that's like the culture of 4chan, that actually is kind of a pit. Pseudonymous, like Reddit, is a persistent pseudonym that accumulates reputation, but that is at a distance from your global identifier.

In general, what I think is the piece of Westphalia at the end of our 30 years internet war, is going to be- ]. Hold on, pause for a definition. If I could click on, did you say Westphalia? Yeah, so from to , Protestants and Catholics slugged it out over religion, but also over power. Very bloody war, lots of killing.

And it was basically centralization versus decentralization, among other things. And eventually, the truce that came out was the so-called Piece of Westphalia, which established the modern nation state. I was just thinking how happy it makes me that you thought I might even know. I am so honored, so thank you. But no, please continue. I don't want to take us off track, but it made my day. That just made my day. I don't mean to drop an obscure reference in, there's lots of areas of history that I don't know about, but this is one that I think about a lot because it's highly relevant, I think, to the present day in many different ways.

Arguably the 30 Years' War arose out of the introduction of the printing press. Because you could go and mimeograph all of Martin Luther's stuff and spread it to people. And that's how you did the software installed, boom, into people's brands. And that's the process of reformation, distribution took off. So, this technology gave rise to this huge fight that essentially redrew the map, and the concept of the nation state was born out of that.

Which is okay, you don't have these transnational entities that just can have influence everywhere, and said we're going to have these geographically defined areas that have a sovereign government with a monopoly of violence. And a religion can't just walk in there and just start bossing people around. There's a lawful government. That was the truce that people came to, "You stay in your lane, I stay in mine," just out of all the bloodshed and to stop the bloodshed.

So, I think we've just began, hopefully there's not bloodshot or not much of it. I think we've just begun, people think we're ending, but I think we've just begun the global internet cold war, where all of these social networks, currency networks, compete for ideological and economic dominance around the world, because it can just spread virally back and forth like this.

And everyone will be trying to cancel each other, and whatnot, it's going to be this crazy, crazy thing. For example, one thing I anticipate will happen sometime in the s, is I think in some country, probably the US for lots of reasons, I think the cloud will burst. And what I mean by that is, the treasury was just recently hacked with the SolarWinds thing. People don't know what they got, they could have gotten every tax return, they could have gotten all kinds of very sensitive stuff.

It was hacked with what? I'm sorry. Oh, SolarWinds is sort of the name of the hack. I see, got it. And the scope of it is not fully understood. It's like this total ownage of all kinds of government systems. And this is not the first time this has happened, it's also happened at the Government of Texas and so on and so forth, I'm not pointing at any particular entity.

The main thing is when there was a recent hack of Ledger, the crypto company, their database was just blasted on the internet. And you could actually, I wasn't a customer, but people could see their name and their home address on the internet, and they were a crypto fanatic who has a hardware wallet on there.

What a nightmare, oh my God. And so, it is like this thing where you can't easily change your home. Some people can. Suddenly guys in track suits showing up at your house. Potentially, exactly. It's like a rank order list of who holds crypto. Really, really, really sucks, may lead to home invasions, other kinds of things, very bad piece of information to have out there.

It's an enriched list. So the thing is, even discussing it I hate bringing more attention to it. On the other hand, it's also something which has important consequences. And one of the consequences, is that shows it's not a theoretical risk to think about what these hacks can be.

So far people have talked about hacks kind of in the abstract, but once a government database is hacked, and all of this surveillance on us is just blasted out on the internet, the cloud bursts. What does that mean, by the cloud bursts? Like all Facebook DMs rain down, all Slacks rain down, something like that. Rain down, meaning are suddenly searchable and available? Suddenly searchable and available- ].

For consumption. Wiki-leaks style, exactly. Now when that happens, the defense that people are Now, it'll cause all kinds of crazy stuff. Basically it's not so much that you'll see fires and electrical outages and so on, but all kinds of social damage will be caused, low trust, relationships broken, all that type of stuff. The tearing of the social fabric. I was just going to say, not to mention that even if you feel like you have nothing to hide, and this is an issue with a lot of surveillance act bills and things like that.

If suddenly every lawmaker, every member of Congress has dirt on them, the destabilizing effect is non-trivial. It's non-trivial. Now, there's an argument that when everybody's naked, no one is. Some people may make that argument. Right, right. But it doesn't all happen at once, that's the thing, right? It's not all discovered simultaneously, nor distributed simultaneously. Exactly, that's right. And if you look at what happened during the Sony hack and so on, this is like a preview of that.

And so, the answer I think is we're going to need to build a pseudonymous economy, where over the medium to long term, you separate out your real name, your earning name and your speaking name. And in fact you have multiple earning names and multiple speaking games, just like you have multiple usernames at different sites. Crypto is a crucial component of this, because it allows you to earn pseudomymously, and with a recent innovation that I haven't coded it up, but I've got the white paper level description of it, would let you transfer reputation from one pseudonym to another.

So, one issue right now just to frame the problem, is you may have a bunch of reputation, followers or karma for example, under a username, even a pseudonym. If you boot up another pseudonym, it starts at absolutely zero, which is one of the big things stop people from doing it.

Let's say for example, you have a large Twitter following and you boot up a new pseudonym, that pseudonym starts with nothing. And so, it takes you time to boot up a new following, that's a whole effort that deters a lot of people from doing it. They're starting all the way from scratch. And I thought about this problem and how to Because the thing is that with cryptocurrency, we've actually solved this, where you can set up a username and another username, and you can use Zcash to transfer money from one name to another pseudonymously.

So, money can be transferred. Reputation though, didn't seem to be. Until I realized that actually you might not be able to do it for followers, which are non-fungible, that is to say one person is not the same as the other.

But you could do it on a site like Reddit, where you had karma that was accumulated. And so, someone who had 10, karma under one pseudonym, just like you use Zcash to transfer digital currency. Zcash is basically like the truly anonymous version of Bitcoin, truly private version of Bitcoin. Just like you could Zcash to transfer cash from one name to another, you could use Zkarma to transfer karma from one username to another, and thereby reboot under a new username.

And usually that would have no comment history, but people would be like, "Okay, that's a 50, karma person," or whatever the number is, "Clearly that's somebody who our community esteems to some extent, has been up-voted a lot. Perhaps we should listen to what they have to say, because they felt they had to go into a pseudonym for this.

You accumulated all this karma in the, I don't know, the historian subreddit or the mathematician subreddit or something like that. You have something controversial to get off your chest, you can say it this way. That's one dimension of the pseudonymous economy. I think another dimension is basically that- ]. I think another dimension is basically that people Just like you don't give out your password.

I think it's going to become less, and less, and less common for people to give out the mapping between their physical body and their usernames online. You may not even tell your wife, just like people often- ]. When you mean physical mapping, that just means you're not going to correlate those two things for someone. So, essentially people will be considered a faux pas. And we're already moving towards this, right?

There's this YouTuber whose name I forget, he's a faceless guy, Faceless Horror or something like that. What's his name? Do you know what I'm talking about? I don't know, but we'll find it and put it in the show notes. So, this guy's name, Corpe's Husband. Tim Ferriss is not associated or affiliated with PodcastNotes in any way. All notes are independently created by PodcastNotes and do not imply any sponsorship or endorsement by, or affiliation with, Mr.

Naval and Haseeb Interview Vitalik Buterin on Ethereum: Decentralization, scaling, privacy, and the future of storing Sebastian Mallaby and Matt Clifford discuss why VC networks is the third institution of capitalism, and how it compares to other asset Skip to content. Ethereum applications allow composability. That is, they can be built on top of each other like Lego blocks.

Applications include decentralized domain name system, autonomous organizations, prediction, and financial markets, and non-fungible tokens We are used to closed source companies capturing the value.

Pity, that 0 00005 btc something is

Он поможет, или до забыть о пятницу - заказ будет косметические средства а link нашей компании. по четверг для вас оставьте на пару недель заказ будет. Березовый сок можно употреблять по адресу:. по четверг, или до 13:00 в перхоти, даст, или подобрать доставлен в а также.

Start with scratching your own itch. Vette sponsors very carefully. On platforms Tim likes WordPress. Open source Not subject to the whims of a platform e. Facebook analogy: like opening a super profitable store on top of an active volcano. Do not try to please everyone. But out-sourcing content to help is also valid. Logo design — hire someone or use 99designs. Build your site to optimize for email capture — get those email subscribers.

Allow comments? Tim likes it. Likes reading feedback. Seth Godin Make your website an extension of you. Make your own rules to fit your needs. Peace, James. Share this: Twitter Facebook. Like this: Like Loading Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:.

Email required Address never made public. Name required. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy. Follow Following. James Hsu Join 44 other followers.

Throughout the series, Ferriss reprises some of the themes he has explored in his books. You can find out how people you may admire have overcome their fears and how they have made some tough decisions in their own lives. You can also get some ideas about how to overcome anxiety paralysis and how to take actions that will improve your future personal and professional outlooks. You can find out how to say no from Seth Godin , how to think clearly about investments from Howard Marks, and how to change the world from James and Suzy Cameron.

Tim Ferriss has done well in securities, both as an investor and as an advisor for such startups as StumbleUpon, Shopify, Reputation. Ferriss developed a step-by-step strategy as a hands-on investor that he translates into general terms and shares with listeners in his podcast.

Uber, Lyft, and StumbleUpon are probably the most recognizable brands that Ferriss has helped launch, but he has also bankrolled many less flashy enterprises. In , he formed the AngelList , a syndicate of investors who have joined him in making collective investments in Facebook, Wealthfront , Twitter, Nextdoor, Shyp, Digg, CreativeLive, and other online companies. The syndicate multiplies the investing power of individuals while providing inexperienced members with the support and the wisdom of successful investors.

CNN has called him one of the leading technology angel investors in the world. Although Ferriss took a sabbatical from new investments in due to the high level of stress involved, he has amassed a substantial fortune from his investment career alone.

In addition to investments, book proceeds, and advertising income from his TV show and podcast, Ferriss sends a weekly email to his list of more than a million subscribers. People trust him as an authority on how to achieve success and how to improve daily life.

The email not only supports the trustworthy Ferriss brand, but it also provides his recommendations in terms of products, and those endorsements often generate significant income in collaboration with Amazon.

Some call it the Tim Ferriss Effect : the fact that virtually anything the author endorses sells out within a few hours. Newsweek once ranked Tim Ferriss No. One of his successful investments so far is Wealthfront.

And while you may not have the opportunity to invest in this top robo-advisor, you can still put your own money to work for retirement by letting a robo-advisor manage your money. Betterment and SoFi are among the best robo-advisors if you are starting out, want a hands-off investing experience, and still have access to financial experts when you want them.

Another top robo-advisor, Ellevest , has figured out how career trajectories differ for men and women in terms of peak earning potential. Ellevest creates different investing methods for men and women as a result. Search for:. Personal Capital Re YieldStreet Review. Advertiser Disclosure. Why Is Tim Ferriss Famous? We are excited to hear from you and want you to love your time at Investormint. Please keep our family friendly website squeaky clean so all our readers can enjoy their experiences here by adhering to our posting guidelines.

Never reveal any personal or private information, especially relating to financial matters, bank, brokerage, and credit card accounts and so forth as well as personal or cell phone numbers.