# Hello!
Good to see you
Hi, welcome to my notes.
This is basically a public repository of things I've learned, collected or found interesting enough to write down but that aren't suitable for blog posts. None of this is presented as fact or even recommendation, merely my personal thought processes and interests. This is all a perpetual work-in-progress, I'm attempting to be raw and learn openly.
Broadly, you'll find here:
* Philosophy, in the "how to live a good life" sense
* Emotional wellbeing
* Meditation
* Programming
* Video Games
* How to get shit done
* Efficiency
* Minimalism
* Essentialism
* Art and creation
* Health
* Exercise
* General scientific inquiry
These resources are part of my effort to be healthy, happy, skilled and caring person. I provide no guarantees they will do any of that, but there's a chance.
Please let me know of anything you think I might like after poking around here š
# Remember
Rules to live by, if you're me anyway
1. Your life is not and does not have to be better than everyone else's
2. The life you build is about your own happiness, not being "great" in others' eyes
3. Aim for contentment in the moment and ambition for the future, contentment is not complacency
4. Never be ashamed of liking something because it's outside of your, or anyone else's, taste
5. Always strive to understand others' views even when they contradict your own, there is something to learn from every disagreement
6. Readily accept and enjoy recommendations from others
7. It's okay to love working but not for it to be all encompassing, relax and enjoy the moment
8. If someone doesn't know how to do something, teach them patiently
9. Whenever you are frustrated, consider if it's worthwhile to burn the energy on anger
10. Seek perspective in all things, but don't do anything for the sake of it
11. Set goals and work hard to achieve them, but not to the detriment of yourself
12. Be compassionate and care for others but never put their wellbeing before your own
13. Have faith in humanity
14. Attempt to live an exemplary life
15. Respond, don't react
# Priorities
My list of priorities at the given time, these shuffle around
1. **Physical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing**
Sleeping well, good nutrition, meditation and generally treating myself with kindness and respect.
2. **Creative expression**
Game development, music production, photography, visual design etc.
3. **General perspective and knowledge**
Reading articles & books, listening to podcasts, travel, perspective enhancing substances.
4. **Social activity**
Friendships and romantic relationships.
5. **Financial stability**
Savings, investment and spending habits.
6. **Programming, design and business skills**
Exercises, lectures, courses and conferences.
7. **Fitness and sport**
Attempting to achieve at a high level in the gym.
# Quotes
Various pretentious quotes that I have found meaningful over time.
> A good is never so good as when you have no awareness you are doing good.
>
> **Awareness - Anthony De Mello**
> What is it that you are unwilling to feel?
> Moderation is a fatal thing... Nothing succeeds like excess.
>
> **Oscar Wilde**
> The more you know about love, the less important it is who you are loving.\
> \
> **Alain de Botton**
> A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately at peace with himself. What a man can be, he must be.
>
> **Abraham Maslow**
> Don't ask how to survive or how to be successful, ask how to be useful.
> Hereās a fun game. Ask yourself: What strongly held opinion of mine will my grandchildren one day struggle to understand?
>
> **Anastasia Basil**
> How do you make society more productive and humane?
>
> **Peter Drucker (via Jim Collins)**
> The Way of the warrior does not include other Ways, such as Confucianism, Buddhism, certain traditions, artistic accomplishments and dancing. But even though these are not part of the Way, if you know the Way broadly you will see it in everything. Men must polish their particular Way.
>
> **The Book of Five Rings - Miyamoto Musashi**
> Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains ... an unuprooted small corner of evil.
>
> Since then I have come to understand the truth of all the religions of the world: They struggle with the evil inside a human being (inside every human being). It is impossible to expel evil from the world in its entirety, but it is possible to constrict it within each person.
>
> **Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn**
# Feynmen on Curiosity vs Motivation
# Musings
I write lots of little notes that end up going nowhere. These are just things floating around my head that I like to get down on paper. You have been warned!
# Overthinking
Overthinking is a misleading term, it implies that more thinking is always bad. Overthinking typically refers to *pointless* thinking or rumination. I have found that applying more thought and deliberate intellectual rigour to my life has been continuously rewarding.
It may sound stressful, but it really isn't. Thinking things through in advance is a great mitigator for future stress.
# Addiction
Addiction is acceptable on the following conditions:
* You can admit it without shame
* You take scheduled / regular breaks
* You truly appreciate the value it brings to your life and believe that value outweighs the cost
* You acknowledge the control it has over you
* It does not lead you to neglect other aspects of your life
# Compassion vs Action
There is a distinction between being compassionate for someone, for being there for them when they need it and being responsible for alleviating their suffering.
Love is being there, love is not "doing anything" to make it better.
Focusing on alleviation of suffering is a fallacy, it cannot be stopped forever.
# Awareness
The unaware life is not worth living.
What you are aware of, you can account for.
# Truth
Don't seek truth; drop your opinions.
Openness is more valuable than concrete knowledge.
# Problems
Reality is not problematic, you are the source of the problem.
# Growth and Chaos
Shock leads to growth.
A raging fire destroys all in its path, and yet in its wake new sprouts appear.
Chaos may be unpleasant to experience but it tears away our comfort. It gives us a chance to reassemble the pieces in a way that's suitable for who we are now, rather than who we were.
# Stillness
If we are constantly immersed in sensory stimulation then the less obvious stimuli are completely ignored. Often when something is amiss for us emotionally there is an early, clear signal. Only in stillness do we have the chance to actually take notice.
# Ego
Notes from reading Awareness by Anthony De Mello
When we talk about the ego vs consciousness, what are we trying to distinguish between?
When we take a moment to observe everything, our senses, our thoughts, our feelings then we could say that we are observing ourselves. This is the process of meditation, to observe yourself as if you were another person (except you've got a little more information).
So, if "I" am watching "me" then who's the "I" and who's the "me"? This is a matter of terminology, rather than any kind of metaphysical claim.
"I" is consciousness, "me" is the ego.
We first aim to observe things, then thoughts and finally we hope to glimpse the thinker. However, can "I" truly observe itself?
Things that are part of "me", not "I":
* my thoughts
* my body
* my name
* my history
* my beliefs
* any label I apply to myself
Suffering occurs when "I" and "me" collapse. This is normal and should not be prevented, merely understood.
# Sum of the Parts
There is likely no behaviour, belief or concept within you that does not originate from someone else.
# Float
Itās possible to take the perspective that there's nothing that must be done. Things progress on their own, we simply observe. Do not try to boil the ocean, find a way to float upon it.
# Mission Statement
To give others a sense of understanding about their insecurities and trauma, ultimately leading them to accept themselves and find contentment.
This likely comes from my own desire to be understood and included. This is what my younger self needed, to hear that they were still normal. That you can learn to overcome and accept any of your most disliked qualities.
# Depressive Episodes
When you're depressed remember to sit with your sadness and really feel it, do not avoid it. Often you can glimpse the cause, but at the very least you can let yourself off the hook.
# Authenticity
Authenticity is the most important thing in my work. The best way to form a genuine connection with both distant strangers and close friends is to honestly share who you are.
No shame, no judgement, just acceptance.
The goal is for someone to say "Oh, I'm not alone"
# Wholesale Ideology
One should never adopt wholesale the philosophy of anyone else. At best, this is intellectually lazy and at worst leads to no less than ideological warfare and bloodshed. When we stop thinking for ourselves we make ideologies the backbone of our identity. In turn, when confronted with an opinion that contrasts with our own the very core of our identity is threatened and we respond with fear. Instead if we hold many beliefs and ideas with a gentle touch we are free to invite more in and release old beliefs without distress.
# Direct Transmission
Rarely do we find knowledge distilled into simple directives. When writing we must spend most of our time making an argument to support our beliefs, but if we trust the source material then we can ingest simple claims. Some of the best work out there is of this format, but it only works due to the authority of the author.
Paraphrased from Derek Sivers (on The Tim Ferris Show)
# An Egg
Success is like an egg, externally it suddenly hatches but internally it was always growing at the same pace.
# Gifts
All things in life are given to you, they cannot be taken by force. However, you must make yourself ready to receive them before you can actually accept the gift. Be thankful when you receive the gift, know your have earned it but that you were not entitled to it. For every just success you have there may be an equivalently unjust failure.
# Relationships
Until you truly begin to know yourself it's unlikely you will have a meaningful, lasting relationship. By all means, enter into relationships and enjoy them but know that you are just practicing for the real thing.
Knowing yourself is the only path to knowing others.
# Consistency
It should not bother us that we are inconsistent, or that we have thoughts that are undesirable. There is no avoiding this since you cannot control yourself. In many ways this perspective is an antidote to shame.
Obviously, at times, shame is critically important but when taking this view it becomes a choice rather than a curse... If you have any experience with that voice in your head screaming that you'll never be anywhere near good enough then I'm sure you can relate.
# Self vs Other
Think of yourself as "another person". Understand your own feelings and actions as you would for a close friend. Importantly, treat yourself with the same kindness you would extend to a close friend. You are no different to anyone else.
# The Identity Problem
Why being an individual isn't all it's meant to be.
* Expressing oneself is good
* Determining your worth from your individuality is bad
* Freedom from judgement
* Accepting yourself > admiring yourself
* You will change, you shouldn't fight it
* Instead watch and understand the changes as they come
* You are not one identity, you are hundreds of competing ones
# Ethical Software
* Clear privacy policy
* Transparent pricing
* No selling user information
* Only gather analytics to improve product
* Aim to reduce time spent in software not increase it
* Make people's lives easier
* Personal connection between creator and customer
* I want you to know why I made this
# Being "Good"
You don't need to dedicate your entire life to fixing the world, instead choose to live it in an ethical way you wish others could follow.
Choose projects that enrich people's lives and provide value and conduct them honestly and transparently.
Aim to share knowledge with others about how you've learned to live.
Support initiatives and projects you believe in publicly and vocally to help spread the word.
# Path
All my life people have tried to tell me the way to do everything. Like there's no alternative to walking the well-worn path. I decided a long time ago, I'm going to do it all my own way.
No fucking people over, no pursuit of status. Just real stuff made with love. If that doesn't work then I don't want to do it at all.
# Clarity and Presence
Think twice before altering your consciousness via substance when you're already enjoying the clarity and detail of life, instead tune in and appreciate the moment.
# Buddhism
Buddhism is not a belief in a body of unverifiable dogmas. It is an active, impartial, objective investigation of things as they are.
I'm still not a Buddhist though.
# Emotions vs Reason
We do not produce emotions based on logic and reasoning, rather we use logic and reasoning to justify our emotions.
Transmitting our ideas via reasoning implies to us that ideas are *just* the reasoning, rather than the combination of reasoning and perspective such that the idea is appealing.
# Accepting Ideas
We are unable to accept ideas that we find distasteful. So a large part of philosophy is not just having an idea, but finding a way for that idea to sit well with you. The insignificance of man is not an appealing concept until we reframe it in the context of a universal system.
Much of education is about framing an idea so it can be received rather than just delivering the idea.
Perhaps a successful idea is one that can be easily taken on board because it is made easily appealing?
# Importance
You are just as important as every other human, every planet, every galaxy, every ant, every grain of sand and every electron.
# The Compliment
No matter how we contort ourselves we cannot perfectly match the shape of another
# Incorrect Assumptions
Things I've been told throughout my life that turned out to be bullshit
* That people cannot and will not change
* That because I do well on standardised testing I am intelligent
* That because I approach the world logically that I am cold and unfeeling
* That because I pay attention to my appearance I am vain (or, that I am queer)
* That because my skin is a particular colour my brain is good at maths
* That because I am good at maths I cannot be creative and artistic
* That there is no point thinking about or trying to make sense of the world
* That people are irreconcilably different at a fundamental level
* That men and women cannot *just be friends*
* That I am successful because I earn a certain amount of money
* That I am wasting my life when I choose to attend parties
* That I am boring when I choose not to attend parties
* That your relationships will play out exactly like anyone or anything has told you they will
* That you are hard to love
* That no one will ever really understand you
* That because I experience my feelings intensely I am not masculine, attractive or mentally healthy
* That I only exercise to attract potential partners
* That drugs can only do me harm
* That drugs are only for recreation and pleasure
* That there is ever only one path forward
* That my aspirations are bizarre and unachievable
# Incomplete Articles
# Receptivity
Uh, is this thing on?
When we tell people our fantastic ideas, we are often confused when they push back on them. What's your problem? This idea is perfectly thought out, immaculate in its conception!
See when we talk, we like to think it's a process of:
```
Person A -> Words describing idea perfectly -> Person B
```
The problem here is several fold. Firstly, words don't actually have the exact same meaning to Person A and Person B, which often leads to us saying things like "What exactly do you *mean* when you say climate change is a hoax?", thinly veiling our rage. This is what people refer to as a semantic disagreement, you can't even agree on what the words mean let alone the idea being communicated. Some people like to pretend this problem isn't real, because dictionaries exist. Meaning is a funny thing though, the main defining characteristic of a word is not the same for everyone.
I am reminded of one of my favourite Buddhist / Jain / Hindu parables: Blind men and an elelphant.
> A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.
The point here, of course, is that none of them were *wrong* about the elephant. They simply had different conceptions of what its defining feature was. This metaphor extends to any kind of idea we are trying to understand and discuss. Luckily it's not too hard to work around, if we are careful to define our terms before making a point then others can see what *we* think words mean.
What makes matters worse though is that it doesn't end here. It turns out ideas have a little baggage with them. Sometimes quite a lot. An idea is not an atomic thing, it cannot be cleanly separated from its related siblings in your brain. In my view, ideas are defined by their relationship to other ideas, with a few key pillars holding everything in place. Trying to pluck one out means we probably need to also communicate all the related ideas, and perhaps even some of the ideas relating to *those.*
*/\* Insert explanation of Idea -> Words -> Sounds -> Words -> Ideas model \*/*
So off we go through this bizarre translation process, the idea gets to the other end and just... Bounces off. *Seriously?* We did all that work to communicate *exactly* the idea in our head and they just reject it outright?
*(Jigsaw puzzle piece not fitting)*
For an idea to actually be taken up by somebody it has to make *sense* to them. More than that, it also has to be *morally tasteful* to them.
> We are unable to accept ideas that we find distasteful. So a large part of philosophy is not just having an idea, but finding a way for that idea to sit well with you. The insignificance of man is not an appealing concept until we reframe it in the context of one universal entity.
>
> Much of education is about framing an idea so it can be received rather than just delivering the idea.
>
> Perhaps a successful idea is one that can be easily taken on board because it is made easily appealing?
One way I've heard this referred to is "The Conceptual Container" (Jim Collins). When we take an idea onboard it's often via a metaphor (the container) that we personally find intuitive and pleasant (because of our current beliefs and ideas) `MetaphorA(Idea)`, we don't ever unpack that idea though. We store the metaphor because human brains really like metaphors. When you go to send the idea to someone else, you'll instinctively go to explain it using that metaphor.
*// Note, there's more to say here about the container. It's not just what metaphor but the entire "skinning" of the idea, do you explain using emotional language, nature references, logic and mathematics etc. Everyone has their own aesthetic preferences. Even down to the aesthetic of who's saying the damn thing.*
This is where we run into trouble. For someone else, that metaphor is probably *not* intuitive or pleasant. This leads us to believe this person doesn't like the idea itself, which is frustrating because it's a really good idea. The art of convincing someone is to pluck the essence of that idea out of `MetaphorA` and put it into `MetaphorB`, where `MetaphorB` is carefully selected for the intended audience.
This is really hard. To further muddy the waters, it's not even just picking the right metaphor for the right person. The timing also matters. Often an idea only makes sense if we have a chain of beliefs for it to append to, if the recipient is missing any of these beliefs in the chain then it's unlikely that they'll understand our idea *today*. But next year, maybe they've had more conversations and built up the context, now our idea slots in nicely even using *the same metaphor*.
So what's the takeaway here?
When trying to explain something, be mindful of the layers of translation at play. Be mindful of differences in definitions (a.k.a. the classic debating semantics). Be mindful of the persons beliefs and preferences for metaphors. Above all, do not blame someone else for not understanding you, it's probably your fault.
Master conversationalists (of which I am not one) effortlessly navigate these layers of complexity, carefully monitoring what level of shared understanding the two of you have in a conversation.
There's an even more powerful point here though. I've talked a lot about you being the sender of an idea, what about being the receiver? All this is also true in reverse. If you hear something that doesn't make sense to you, think about what context the speaker must be using to believe it. Consider that if an idea doesn't make sense to you, it's not because you're "stupid" or "can't understand", you're probably just missing some more fundamental concepts and you should come back later. And when you just find an idea a bit icky, even if you think it makes sense logically (cough, meditation, spirituality, self-love, climate change (again)) then perhaps the container is what's wrong, not the idea itself. Go looking for alternative wordings from other sources and you'll probably find that one perfect version that makes it click for you.
Of course, it's entirely likely that the metaphors and containers I've used in this very article aren't quite the right fit for you. And that's okay, but maybe don't give up on this idea yet š.
# The Hustle
The cycle:
* Envision the ideal structure of my life
* Work when I want, as much or little as I want
* Minimalist, small house, grow some of my own food
* Meditate, learn, socialise, laugh, listen to music, create
* Exercise
* Variety in each day
* Freedom
* What do I need?
* Money, passive income
* How do I get it?
* Start a company
* Release a hit game
* Invest and be smart with my money
* Pitfalls
* I can't actually bring myself to start a company that doesn't help people and that I'm not passionate about
* If I focus too much on this type of success, then I will be moving further away from my ideal
* So, seems like the only way is what I'm doing right?
* Work for someone else
* Make fulfilling side projects with the hope that eventually one of them can lead me to being financially independent
* The problem is, this leaves me very time-poor
* Constantly stressing that I could be doing *more*
* Hard to relax and turn off with friends and loved ones
* Current plan is to save enough money to coast for a few years and give myself a real run at doing what I want full-time
# Sense and Sensation
On the beauty of experience
Everything you have ever experienced was painted in the palette of sensation.
Just as with colours, sensation mix to create new, distinct combinations. They remain paints.
Expand your view of sensation to include every possible aspect of human experience.
This ultimately frames every moment as a painting of exquisite, expansive beauty.
What's more, the very experience of self-hood is but one colour on the palette.
Some sensations you might not have singled out as being discrete:
* There is someone right behind me
* I think everyone in this room was just talking about me
* I have a body that is separate from yours
* All things are connected and deeply integrated
We are taught to think of experience in bland shades of "happy", "sad", "angry", "bored" etc. but any possible state of consciousness is uniquely identifiable in the spectrum of sensation.
All ideas at the most abstract level are represented by some sensory signature, a.k.a emotional tone. The emotional tone of a concept is like its hashing function, it is not a full representation of the concept but it is a unique quick-access key representation of it.
If the painting I have described is a landscape of sensation, then the canvas itself is your consciousness.
Any given sensation we choose to label and identity does not, really, discretely, exist. We are attaching labels to a multi-axial continuum. While this continuum may be infinite and innately unstructured, the human mind is a powerful pattern matcher. We model our representation of reality out of patterns we've identified.
When we take in any stimulus it will trigger existing sensory experiences to the degree that the pattern fits. A 90% match is a strong reaction, a 5% is perhaps a passing thought.
So, when we experience synathesea of any kind this is the game at play. Different neuro-chemical environments change the parameters of this entire process but the process remains none-the-less.
Psychedelic drugs make this exceptionally clear. By the atypical blending of patterns these chemical produce in us, we can notice that our most concrete perceptions are merely heuristics.
Still, this leaves one gaping question: why does any of this require consciousness in the first place?
If there one more term to the equation? Free will? God? Subjectivity-as-a-subatomic-particle (SaaSP). We *may* never know, and yet I quietly hope we one day will. I hope to evaluate every possible theory on this question as time goes on.
We are awash in a sea of subjectivity,
You can flail desperately reaching for the shore,
But, if you lay back you will see that you float,
There is no firmament to be found, do not account for certainty in your thinking, unless you are specifically thinking about certainty itself.
With time you become almost amused by the personality of what arises in consciousness. This is the conduit from which your sense of lasting joy emerges. This is why meditation is joyful, it's aligned with an appreciation for the silly in all of us.
# Truly Celebrating Difference
Diversity, but only the way I like it
* Why should we accept those different to us
* Difference breeds perspective and innovation
* We may have evolved with xenophobia built-in but we are smart enough to know that this primal urge should not control us
* Philosophically, controlling another person's choices that have no impact on your is ridiculous
* What does it mean to celebrate difference?
* There is profound beauty in the specificity of the individual
* It's fair that many men and women, myself included, do not fit cleanly into the classical definitions of their gender archetypes
* We're in danger of totally flipping the poles on this one
* Toxic masculinity has grown to encompass traits that are incredibly common, useful and beautiful in men. We are shamed for our competitiveness, our ability to cultivate aggression and even (for some of us) our attraction to women
* Similarly, women have been placed into a new, equally restrictive template
* Focus on your career
* You are not controlled by your emotions
* Some of us, regardless of sex, do feel the influence of emotions far more intensely, we have invalidated the existence of this experience
* Don't be excessively "girly" (this is a loose definition, go by example)
* In our attempts to create equality we are also doing just the opposite
* Feeling comfortable expressing exactly who you want to be and being accepted for it
* We **must** make the distinction between celebration of difference and idolisation of identity
* The identity arms race, I am more individual than you
*
* Does this imply the dissolution of all categories and labels?
* A difficult issue
* Categories are an evolutionary adaptation, our brains are not *actually* that powerful
* We group things into boxes:
* Plants vs Animals
* Dogs vs Cats
* We can easily recognise one dog from another, but I challenge you to avoid jumping to the word dog when you see one
* A savvy post-modernist might point out that the category is just a social construct, and they would be correct, but it doesn't change the fact that while we could categorise differently we'd be hard pressed not to categorise at all
* This is the same simplification that allows us to *name* anything
* Today we are presented with unique challenges to ancient (and highly politicised) categorisations
* For example, it has become apparent that our definitions of gender and sexuality are poorly suited to describe how many of us are
* There are largely two approaches that have fallen out of this so far:
* Destroy all labels, let us all be individuals
* Conceptually I like this a lot
* Practically it's... challenging
* How do we talk about people? It creates a lot of overhead mentally
* As someone of mixed-race I personally have great disdain for any discussion of what race someone is, race is a flimsy construct at best and I'd rather be evaluated for who I am. Are we really unable to comprehend someone without knowing their ancestry? On the other hand, there are many like me who would proudly and enthusiastically discuss their ethnicity and I can hardly claim they should do otherwise.
* Make a lot of labels
* This seems to be the direction gender and sexuality are heading in
* This is a solid way forward, it allows us to have meaningful conversations about previously unrecognised groups of people
* The challenge is that we seem to be trending towards a situation where, to describe their *specific* sexuality anyone could coin a new term
* The cognitive overhead becomes a legitimate problem
* How many genders becomes too many to *expect* people to learn?
* If you refuse to shoulder the burden of *non-binary* as a category, that's on you
* It's hard to discuss how many genders people would like there to be without using memes as citations, but for sake of argument if there were 1000 then clearly expecting us all to know them inside out isn't going to work
* Additionally, the differences between these categories become infinitely smaller to the point where ignorance and confusion will result in unintended insults or misunderstandings of individuals' views
* These are both legitimate options, but both fall prey to the same trap: forcing change upon others
* What does equality really mean?
* We continue to make the same mistake of trying to heavily control how others should live their lives and express themselves. Historically this has largely been through oppression and dehumanisation.
* Yes, we *must* act when the actions and cultural attitudes being expressed are harming people, be it physically, mentally or otherwise
* Is it possible for us to appreciate and understand one another without constantly retooling our lexicon? It's becoming apparent that
* The disappointing conclusion I find myself with is that categories are necessary for productive human conversations but they are inherently clumsy for those of us who sit on the boundaries (or firmly outside)
# Love, for Overthinkers
I've had a very confusing time trying to understand the L word and I get the impression that I'm not alone. You've probably heard some of this before, so I'll keep it brief. Love is a difficult topic for multiple reasons:
* We use it to refer to everything (friends, family, pets, lovers, clothing, music)
* We are desperate for it
* We are scared to admit that we want it
I used to regard the many use cases of the word as the most challenging aspect. How can we equate the process of caring about our parents with that of a romantic relationship? The exact nature of your feelings in each context is quite distinct from another. Now I think the most confusing part of our attitude to love is our collective deification of it. We focus intently on the romantic aspect of love in Western culture, not that I know for sure any other cultures get it right, I'm speaking from the experience of growing up in Australia and the UK.
As I'm sure is the case for many of you, my education on love was almost entirely through movies and books. I saw over and over again the template for real loveā¢ spelled out. Two people meet, they have an immediate and profound connection, they overcome mild adversity then they effortlessly continue to revel in their undying love. This love is so powerful that it transcends reason or explanation, you "just know" when you've found it. *This* is the worst part of our attitude to love, it's an *entirely* unrealistic representation.
I spent a long time terrified that I'd never experience *this* feeling. I had been made to feel like it was the best experience possible in this life. I questioned every feeling I had for a girl (please note this obviously applies to any sexual orientation, I am speaking personally) to see if there were traces of the *magic feeling*. I found myself in my first serious relationship trying to work out if the deep adoration I felt was real loveā¢ or something lesser. Let that sink in, I was too preoccupied trying to work out if this was reaching some imaginary standard to actually appreciate what I had. As our relationship continued my feelings began to fluctuate, in what I now know are very expected ways, and I began to fear that I was somehow broken, that I wasn't capable of loving.
I repeated this pattern for quite some time. Thinking each new relationship would be real loveā¢ and probing it endlessly to try and work out if it was.
## Nothing supernatural about it
This took me years to unravel and realise how completely ass-backwards my understanding was. I'm a logical and skeptical person, I gravitate towards beliefs based on evidence. Somehow this one snuck in early before I understood how to question anything. I do not believe in destiny (at least not in the cosmic sense, I'm fond of determinism), but somehow I'd let the idea of love sit at that mystical level in my mind. If you loved someone then that was it, you *just knew* and everything would be fine. The scariest aspect of this part of culture is that it teaches you that your feelings should directly control your actions. "Follow your heart" and all that. This is exactly the opposite lesson we learn from mindfulness.
I chipped away at these ideas for a while. I could see my experience didn't match up to the fantasy I'd been sold, but I could not understand what a better approach was. The breakthrough came from a combination of meditation and philosophy. Through meditation I glimpsed first-hand the feeling of pure, undirected love. I felt compassion for every living thing at once and I understood that love doesn't "come from" other people. It's just always there. Not in the sense that it's some fundamental phenomenon, like gravity or electromagnetism (though some would argue that *is* the case), but that you can find a way to cultivate compassion in almost any situation if you know what to look for.
From an educational perspective I would thoroughly recommend the work of Alain de Botton, [especially this talk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-iUHlVazKk). He does an excellent job of dismantling our frustrations around love and dispelling our *many* misconceptions.
## Practical Love
Love is the process of genuinely admiring and/or fostering the growth of another entity without any expectation of reciprocation. When defining it on these terms I realised that I'd been loving all along without even knowing. I'd never understood where to look before. I remind myself of this principle through a quote that is often falsely attributed to Buddha, though Hitler could have said it and it would still be true.
> When you *like* a flower, you pluck it and it withers. When you *love* a flower you admire it, you water it regularly and you watch it grow.
From this perspective the same love you feel for family *does* apply to the meal you just ate. Sure, you're hopefully only digesting one of them but the core sensation of love is common to both: a deep appreciation for the exact qualities something possesses. This model even allowed me to finally understand the idea of "loving myself". I could see that I could accept and nurture myself without being narcissistic or self-centred.
When it comes to our own relationships, rather than waiting for love to appear or searching for it we should realise that love is in the giving rather than receiving. If you want to *feel* love then you must act lovingly, accept others and foster their growth, marvel at their uniqueness and in turn you will be rewarded with quite possibly the best feeling imaginable.
# There's No Accounting For Taste
* If someone likes something and you do not, accept that *they do like it*
* They are different to you, that's a good thing
* Different tastes are important, strange obscure art can only exist because of mainstream normality
* People deserve to have entertainment made for them, popular music, tv, etc is popular because *a lot of people like it*
* Accept this fact, it's not due to inferior intelligence, it's an emotional experience someone else gets
* Not everyone should react the same way to everything
* Instead find the profound beauty in the fact someone *does* like something, ask them what about it they like and look for those qualities
* It's possible to grow appreciation for something, even if you never love it
* This gives you access to powerful perspectives outside yourself and helps with empathetic reasoning
* Engage this mindset especially with those you love, if someone you respect and care for likes something that you do not then you should try to understand why they like it
* This will teach you deep insights about your friends and family and in turn will help you relate to them and the world at large
* I believe that the diversity of opinion in the world, especially in the domain of something as wholesome as entertainment, is a wonderful gift
# Optimism for Cynical Assholes
* I have always been very negative
* I found optimism and wholesomeness cringe inducing and trite
* We don't want to be openly positive for fear of judgement from others
* "Oh, you're one of *those* people"
* Or for fear of rejection, for them not reciprocating
* How fucked up is it that we are scared of being judged for being happy? Of being judged for caring about someone?
* I have always had trouble expressing my affection for partners, family and friends
* Sometimes I would feel like I should say something but I was paralyzed by fear of looking "stupid" while doing it
* It may not look like it, but sharing your happiness and compassion takes immense courage
* ... more about having trouble opening up, anecdotes etc.
* Some people find this distasteful because they see the world as a cruel and unforgiving where you must *earn* your place
* Sure, whatever, the world is cruel and doesn't care about you
* Isn't that a strong argument *for* being positive?
* I doubt many of us will get to the end of our lives and think "I am *so* glad that I remained cynical the whole way, it really made it all worthwhile"
We're playing a bigger game here, it's not just about how you feel but about how you *could* feel.
* Let's say you're actually open to the idea of being positive, what steps can you take?
* Affirmations
* Gratitude practices
* Appreciating the little things
* Notes on **how** you can fight the voice in your head that tells you "this is dumb I wanna stop"
# Moral Optimisation
* Moral Constructivist
* Naturalist
* Talk about adaptive moral advantage for the environment
* No objective morality, but emergent principles that are often applicable
* Share with others
* In good times this is optimal, in bad times it is not... Seems clear?
* The universe itself has no morals
* Where are they located?
* There are interesting properties of the universe that inform morality though
* Networks, distribution and collaboration are generally more efficient than the converse
* This implies that working together can be both emotionally experienced as a moral good and objectively analysed for its utility as an organisational system
* Often our moral debates are not always centred around utility though, more often than not we debate issues that simply feel wrong to us
* Abortion is a classic example, there's little convincing to be said to some about the utility of abortion, it's just too distasteful
* Here we find an interesting intersection between The Law and personal values
* When should something be legal? It should have nothing to do with tastfulness and everything to do with reasoning
Moral philosophy is very old
Broadly:
* Relativist
* Absolutist
* Realist
Arguments about how to act:
* Deontology
* Consequentialism
Moral Constructivism (humans create morals, they only exist to us)
Constructivism is a very palatable perspective, but it leaves us with quite a general understanding. How can we compare moral choices to determine which are superior? Is such a thing even possible? Or desirable?
I've been considering the idea recently that morals, while constructed, can still be optimised. Taking a step back, what could be the reason humans developed morality? It seems there must be a selection pressure towards creating and acting on an internal moral code. Anecdotally it's not hard to see that in our current societal collaboration seems to achieve better results on average than historical competition at a purely individual level. It follows that humans who had developed a greater desire to collaborate would have in turn had a higher chance of survival. But what about environments where collaboration is impossible or inferior? If there is only enough food for half the humans in their tribe perhaps the selection pressure is... a little weaker.
The point I'm trying to make here is that morality may be constructed by humans but there is likely an adaptive advantage to some moralities over others based on the current physical and social climate of a society.
# How to stay off your phone
* Apple watch
* Delete Facebook
* Delete any infinite scrolling apps
* Put reading apps into the social know media spots
* Leave your phone in the other room
* Disable all notifications that aren't vital
* Designated times to reply to messages each day
* Set time limits for your apps
* If you have problematic times of the day set reminders or streaks to keep you honest
* Remind yourself why this is worth doing
* Take back control
* Be happier
* Be present
* Connect with the ones you love
* Realise that none of it really matters
* You don't have to demonize it, I wrote this on my phone
* Take the good and leave the bad
# Accessibility in Games: Can I Play Too?
* Accessibility vs difficulty
* What are my definitions, how can they be different
* Subtitles, different controllers, colour blind options
* Where do they overlap?
* What is developer vision?
* How often do we actually have strong feelings about how our games should be played?
* The player's experience is manipulated but not manufactured
* Toxic masculinity & gatekeeping
* Why "skill" and "overcoming challenge" are not relevant to every game
* The right to your own perspective
* Why "skill" and "overcoming challenge" are totally fine
* You cannot invalidate someone else's reasons for subjectively enjoying something, no matter how hard you try
* It's all in the mindset - Alpha Wolf
* Separate what we enjoy from what people are "allowed" to do
* If I need my credentials checked
* I am not a highly skilled player
* I have beaten dark souls 1, 2, 3 and bloodborne
* Halfway through sekiro
* I am a game developer
* Should Sekiro be easier? If From Software decided it should be
* Would difficulty settings undermine the point of the game? For me, not at all but this is down to the developer
* They might make more money and be more popular if they do
* You cannot force a creator's hand
* Should games attempt to cater for those with disabilities? In my opinion, yes, where financially viable & where the it does not create massive design challenges
* Should all games be completable by all players? No, I don't think this is a worthwhile goal
* Is it a shame that some people can't experience games because of this? Yes
* If we aim for all games to be played by everyone then we will lose the smaller, niche games along the way. I do think that games targeting the mainstream audience should cater for as many types of player as possible but ultimately that's up to them. If the market continues to reward From Software for designing games for a niche, challenge seeking audience then they will continue to do so.
# Why I Like Video Games
* A lot of people who are productivity minded have vendetta against video games
* "They're a waste of time"
* "It's fake progress / achievement"
* "Violent / anti-social behaviour"
* I want to spend some time making a case for why I love games and why, for me, they are the ultimate form of creative expression
* It may be surprising to note that I actually play games quite rarely, maybe only once a week or so on average
* Playing games can feel like homework, research and critical analysis
* I'm always testing the boundaries, wondering how they did something technically, how it was designed and thinking of the people behind it
* This is the price you pay moving to the creative side of a field, it becomes harder to find the time and energy to earnestly consume the medium you work in
* My taste in games is reflective of this too, I have a decidedly specific taste in games
* Single player and local co-op
* Precise controls
* Playing as a character, very few god mode or strategy games
* Despite this, when a *really good* games comes along... I totally lose myself in it and remember why I fell in love with the medium in the first place
* Zelda
* Persona
* Dark Souls
* Adventure, tiny worlds, exploration etc.
* To make a game requires a lot of different skills
* Programming
* User experience design
* Narrative design
* Digital illustration
* Animation
* Sound design
* Music composition
* The list goes on...
* Games are a microcosm of almost every form of expression that interests me
* But when it comes down to it, games are the most reliable way I can take the emotive landscape in my head and reify it for others to experience
# Resources
Places I draw my inspiration from
# Podcasts
This is a pretty obvious list honestly
## Joe Rogan
Joe is Joe (lovable once you get to know him), lots of interesting people come on.
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
## Peter Attia
Deep insight into health and longevity from a ripped doctor.
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
## Sean Carroll
Sean is a smart man, keeping my interest in physics alive.
{% embed url="" %}
## Aubrey Marcus
Aubrey is *very* spiritual dude, but if you're into that he's lovely.
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
## Tim Ferris
Tim is kinda of a human-robot which I personally relate to.
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
This podcast made me feel like I wasn't alone in my personality type for the first time
{% endembed %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
## Shane Parrish
Shane gives me too much information to handle.
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
# Books
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
# Videos
Ignore the shitty inspirational video in here, the audio is worth it.
{% embed url="" %}
Listen to everything Terrance has ever said if you have the time.
{% endembed %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
# Progression
My approach to meditation, WIP as I write this down and work it out for myself
## Phase 1: Calm Focus
### Books
* [The Mind Illuminated](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25942786-the-mind-illuminated)
### Apps
* [Waking Up](https://wakingup.com/)
* [Headspace](https://www.headspace.com/)
Start *very* small, only 5 minutes. Good timeslots are: first thing in the morning, after lunch, before bed.
When getting started I believe the simplest way is to focus on the breath. Putting aside the fact that this can become a hinderance at more advanced levels, it is by far the most beneficial, tangible and reliable method I've seen.
I would recommend a few breath paradigms, all of which require [diaphragm breathing](https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/9445-diaphragmatic-breathing):
* Take slow, controlled breaths, counting up to 10
* Keep both the inhale and exhale smooth
* Breath in for a count of 4, hold for a count of 7, breath out for a count of 8
* Breathe in for a count of 10, breath out for a count of 10
* The [Wim Hof](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzCaZQqAs9I) method
* [Holotropic breathwork](https://www.verywellmind.com/holotropic-breathwork-4175431)
* I'm just barely playing with this
**Big tip: practice breathing through your nose as often as possible / practical.**
Beyond the basic relaxation and/or health effects of deep breathing, we're aiming to sharpen the mind's ability to focus. When we lose focus on the breath and find ourselves lost in thought, we repeatedly come back to the breath. Here are some aspects of breathing to help focus on:
* The rising and falling of your chest
* The movement of your abdominals / stomach
* The movement of your shoulders
* The feeling of air in your nostrils and sinuses
* The feeling of air in your throat
* The precise sensation of air moving past the opening of your nostrils
This should be more than enough to occupy you for 1-3 months of practice, increasing session length up to maybe 10 minutes.
**Quick Tips:**
* Use reminders throughout your day to take a few deep breaths
* Making a cup of tea
* Standing up from your desk
* Getting out of the car
* Sitting down on the couch
* Getting in the elevator
* Try appreciate how relaxed you feel after a session
* Then, try to notice when you become flustered, anxious or irritated and contrast the experience
* How does the body feel?
## Phase 2: Shifting the Object
### Books
* [The Mind Illuminated](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25942786-the-mind-illuminated)
### Apps
* [Waking Up](https://wakingup.com/)
Now we've established the basic ability to focus on a "Meditation Object" (a.k.a the breath). Our next goal is to take this ability to focus and point it at *any* sensory experience. Broadly speaking there are six categories of sensory experience we can focus on (this is lifted from the work of Shinzen Young):
> Sidenote, you may expect we would call the breath the *subject* of meditation rather than the *object*. The reason for this distinction is that *you* are the observer of this object, making you the *subject* of conscious experience. This may help you understand strange terms like the subject-object gap and non-dual awareness when you come across them.
1. Bodily sensation
* Breath
* Tingling
* Itchiness
* Pain
* Proprioception
2. External sound
* What you hear
3. Vision
* What you see in front of you
* Back of your eyelids
* The spectrum of colour and light
4. Emotional state
* This one is tricky
* Irritation
* Anxiety
* Melancholy
* Love
* Peace
* Euphoria
5. Inner monologue
* Talking to yourself in your head
6. Visualisation ("The Mind's Eye")
* Imagining images
My routine for this phase involves picking one of these as the main focus of each session. I find that they increase in difficulty as follows:
1. Bodily sensation
2. External sound
3. Visualisation
4. Vision
5. Inner monologue
6. Emotional state
The practice remains the same regardless of the object. We notice the finest detail we can about the sensory input without letting our attention collapse into the object. This is a strange and difficult distinction to make for many, don't worry if it's tricky. There are techniques for getting the hang of it.
If you've started to get comfortable with a few of these, try combining them. Some simple combinations are:
* following the breath + paying attention to sounds
* feeling the body as a cloud of sensation + seeing the back of your eyelids
When it comes specifically to emotional state, I would advise practicing [Metta meditation](https://ggia.berkeley.edu/practice/loving_kindness_meditation). I see nothing wrong (and a lot right) with practicing being a nicer, more compassionate person, and this shit works. A useful tip for Metta is to focus not only on the mental state but the physical sensations accompanying love and care. Feeling these in the body is a reliable way to bring them to the front-of-mind during your daily life.
## Phase 3: Integration & Letting Go
### Tools
* Altered states of consciousness
* "Glimpse" practices (DuckDuckGo it)
### **Books**
* [The Little Book of Being](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/40630089-the-little-book-of-being)
### Videos
* [Shinzen Young](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYSSf71Vo7w)
### Resources
* [What is 'Natural Awareness'](https://www.tenpercent.com/meditationweeklyblog/what-is-natural-awareness)
* [Uncovering Your Natural Awareness](https://www.mindfulleader.org/blog/22143-uncovering-your-natural-awareness-from)
It can be hard to explain this stage without defining our terms:
* **Attention** or **Focus** is the ability to keep concentrating on a **Meditation Object** without becoming distracted and identified with thought
* **Awareness** is the full spectrum of all input available to you at any given time
To use a more concrete metaphor: **attention** is like the spotlight on a stage, narrow but bright. **Awareness** is the lighting in the room itself. We aim to move our efforts from cultivating attention to awareness in this phase. That is to say, brightening the lights in the room until we can see it all at once.
I found this stage incredibly difficult. It took a huge amount of reading and learning before I made any progress. I cannot give you a guaranteed method to make this click for you, it might even be very easy for you!
I once again found Shinzen Young invaluable during this phase. He helped me view consciousness itself as a container or "bubble" containing *the entirety of my experience*. Sam Harris also pushes these same buttons in his *Waking Up* app. I sometimes think of myself as being suspended within this bubble, and meditation is trying to push my awareness out to the boundaries. This is often accompanied by a sensation of "standing behind myself". Effectively, consciousness and its contents shift to become one all-encompassing meditation object.
One of the major turning points for me was understanding that rigid focus and determination are actually impediments to putting all the pieces together. Accordingly, **letting go** is the theme of this phase. Dropping your brow-furrowing focus and trying to find the underlying background awareness is key.
I accomplished this by bringing together all 6 of the input streams mentioned in Phase 2. I would rigidly concentrate on each, adding them one at a time, and then suddenly drop my effort and look for the commonality between them. I repeated this over and over until I started to "drop in" to that underlying layer. This was accompanied by new experience, such as remaining aware of sounds, sights and breathing while having full-on conversations with myself (internally, of course).
> Sidenote: this is where self-dissolution and non-dual awareness come into the picture. When you glimpse being aware of the entirety of conscious experience... There's no room left for "the ego" in that moment.
**In my opinion,** this is where things really changed. I found it much easier to carry this sensation into everyday life and it has been a massive aid for my self-care, professional life, relationships and general happiness in life.
## Phase 4: Question Everything
*This is where I am today. I have not mastered the preceding phases, but this is my frontier of learning.*
We've started to poke at the shape of consciousness itself. The container of all experience. Our pursuit is now as much intellectual and philosophical as it is experiential.
Until this point I found concepts such as [Zen Buddhist Koans](http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/zenindex.html) absolutely nonsensical. Eventually, via Terrance McKenna, I heard of "[the fallacy of misplaced concreteness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_\(fallacy\))" (Alfred North Whitehead) and things started to click. Our model of the world and our perceptions of reality are only the vaguest approximations of truth. The rigid structure we attempt to place upon reality is not reality itself, merely one representation of it.
Question every hard rule about how to live and perceive the world. Do not confuse this with *science denial,* this is the perspective I would hope to see from our leading scientists. Never assume we fully understand, we can merely observe and attempt to predict. Be highly skeptical of anyone pushing certainty upon you, including me.
# The Body
A meditation script for awareness of the body
* Scan through your body from head to toe, notice the details
* The top of your head
* Eyebrows
* Nose
* Cheeks
* Tongue
* Ears
* Neck
* Shoulders
* Biceps / triceps
* Forearms
* Fingers and fingertips
* Spine
* Chest
* Abs
* Booty
* Quads
* Hamstrings
* Knees
* Shins
* Calves
* Feet
* Toes
* Now, let it all dissolve into a cloud of sensation
* Is there any discomfort? Any pain? Itchiness? Restlessness?
* Notice it in detail
* Don't try and fix it, or judge it
* Just notice
* Be grateful for your body working so hard
* Think how much we ask of our bodies
* Walking around
* Carrying heavy objects
* Sitting for hours
* Appreciate all your body does for you, and consider what you can do for it
* Think of a good night's sleep as a gift to your body
* The same with a nutritious meal or physical exercise, even stretching
* Your body will be with you for your entire life, it's best to take care of it accordingly
* Now, explore the sensations in your body
* If you find yourself lost in thought, come back to the feeling of your body resting on the floor / chair
# Consciousness
A meditation scripts for probing the nature of consciousness
* Object awareness
* Focus on your object of choice (the breath, usually)
* Move your awareness to other objects, the body, sound, emotion etc.
* Rotate between objects at a regular but relaxed pace
* Non-choice awareness
* Try to open yourself up to many of these objects at once
* When you notice a sound, be aware that you noticed it
* The same for a breath, a thought, a physical sensation etc.
* Let the objects draw you to them
* Natural awareness
* Focus on your entire body
* Especially the back, feel the enclosed shape of your body
* Become aware of all sensations at once
* Everything you experience, sober or intoxicated, awake or asleep occurs as a perturbation of consciousness
* Merely a ripple on its surface
* Consciousness is like a bubble, containing all of your reality
* It floats weightlessly and deforms easily, always springing back
* Let yourself be aware of this, the container of all experience
* This bubble is not inside your body, or your head, though those objects appear within it
* It is the sum total of everything
* Let the boundaries between you and the universe dissolve
* They were never there in the first place
* Your consciousness is expansive, limitless and warm
* Let go of all focus and effort, just be with your consciousness
* Let go of your beliefs and opinions, they do not define you
* Let go of the pursuit of facts and truth, drop everything and sit in the space that remains
* When we find our awareness, there is no effort, there is no concentration, only relaxed expansiveness
* Sit, and if you once again become identified with thought, gently push your awareness out to encompass everything again
# Relaxation
A meditation for relaxation (especially if someone is anxious or panicked)
* Listen to the sound of my voice, focus on the details
* Is it breathy?
* Nasal?
* Deep?
* Find your focus: breath
* Intentionally take a deep breath: in (count to 5) and out (count to 5)
* Repeat 6+ times
* Begin to notice the details of your breath
* The phases
* Inhaling
* Hold
* Exhaling
* Hold
* Feel it in your stomach, chest, shoulders, back, nostrils, throat
* Let your breathing slow
* Long inhales and exhales
* Imagine your emotional state as an ocean
* The wave and turbulence move in response to your breaths
* As you breath deeper and slower, the ocean's surface becomes calmer and flatter
* Imagine yourself floating upon the waves, weightless and effortless
* Let yourself dissolve into the gentle oscillations of the surface
* All that matters is this coming and going of sensation
* Know that you can always find this place, your anchor, from wherever you are
* Just take a moment to look for the waves and they will be there
* Sometimes the ocean is choppy, sometimes it even storms
* But it will return to its natural, resting state with time
* Search for the underlying tranquility and it will always be there, even if it is obscured
* Let this be your anchor in life
# Metta
A meditation for focusing on love, in the abstract
* Think of someone who's company you enjoy very much
* A simple, uncomplicated relationship
* What is it you appreciate about them?
* Enumerate the things about them you are grateful for
* Think of the impact they have on your life, the good times
* What are their best qualities? Their most amusing idiosyncrasies?
* Feel the warmth welling up inside of you
* Turn your attention to it, focus on the physical sensations
* This is the *feeling* of love, it is just as important as the idea
* Reflect on how you want *the best* for this person
* You hope all their dreams come true
* You wish that they are free of suffering, and when suffering does come that they have the resilience and support to face it
* Imagine their smiling face and feel how happy it makes you
* Repeat this process, cycling through those you care about
* You can repeat people, circle back to them or focus on just one
* Let yourself smile!
* Now ask yourself, what is it that makes this person or these people so special?
* It is that we know them so deeply, that we appreciate the details of what lies beneath the surface of them
* We can extend this love to *anyone*, if we understand them sufficiently
* Think of someone you have a neutral relationship with, someone who works at your local supermarket, your friendly neighbour
* Realise that you want the best for this person too
* Picture them smiling, let yourself wish that their work-day is stress free
* Now, finally, think of someone you find difficult to be around
* We may never find it within ourselves to truly enjoy this persons company
* But even for this highly irritating human being, we can wish the best
* We wish no harm or suffering upon those we dislike
* I hope they are smiling, surrounded by loved ones somewhere far away from me
* Return to the feeling of warmth in the body, if you've lost focus on it, circle back to someone you care deeply about and find it again
* Imagine the warmth and love inside you slowly expanding and intensifying
* Eventually, it moves beyond the surface of the skin, into the air
* Like a layer of love insulating you, perhaps slightly glowing
* Imagining it growing, and growing
* Include the air, all of us around you, this house, this street, our city... Even the whole planet, or the whole of reality
* Stretch the limits of how far you can push this, imagine how beautiful it would be for everyone on earth to earnestly smile and feel content
* Meditate on this for as long as you can, be aware of the sensations
* Enumerate the people out there who are deserving of our compassion
* The poor, the sick, the oppressed
* Feel how much you care for them, despite your paths never crossing
* And now think of the strangers you dislike
* The close minded, selfish, stubborn, bigoted and hateful
* They too deserve our compassion
* They are humans, with just as much depth of experience as ourselves and our loved ones
* And they are hurting, they act out their suffering on others
* But we love them regardless
* Finally, think of yourself
* You are no different to any of these people, you wish yourself the best in life too
* In your head, think the words "I love myself" and let the idea sink in
* Loving ourselves and loving others, there is no difference
* Two sides of the same coin
* Promise you will be gentler and kinder to yourself
* Now, drop your focus, sit with how you feel
* Freely explore the sensations and thoughts of love that arise without any judgement
* Feel free to explore any of the concepts we've been through, while maintaining awareness of the sensations of love
* Or just sit there and bask
* Keep a gentle smile on your face throughout
# Programming Languages
Power rankings
**Favourite**\
Typescript, F#, Elm
\
**Most Used**\
Typescript, JavaScript, C#
\
**Curious**\
Clojure, ClojureScript, Haskell, ReasonML, Go, Rust, Elixir
\
**All, In Order of Appearance**
* C
* HTML/CSS
* Lua
* Python
* Java
* PHP
* JavaScript
* Ruby
* C#
* Typescript
* Elm
* F#
* Swift
# Software Architecture
Resources for my thinking on UI Programming, Distributed Systems Design and Video Game Architecture. Spoilers: it's the same patterns everywhere.
* Event-Driven communication
* Limit direct interaction between components of a system
* Data-Oriented
* Events -> Components -> Data Updates
* Data Updates -> Components -> Events
* Requests -> Components -> Data Queries -> Response
* Unidirectional, immutable, pure, side-effects at boundaries
* [Functional core, imperative shell](https://app.gitbook.com/@bfollington/s/notes/~/drafts/-M1wtdl3z8PnDUBSFQlc/programming/functional-programming/functional-core-imperative-shell)
* Domain-Driven-Design
* Carefully architect code around core business concepts
When considering game architecture specifically a few extra elements become relevant:
* Zero-allocation event dispatch
* Object pooling
* Minimal-allocation state update
* Clever immutable data structures
* Minimal-allocation projection update
* Infrequent projection changes can allocate
* Frequent projection changes should be computed with no allocation
* Minimal-runtime-instantiation of game entities
* Object pooling
* Object lifecycle handling, no dangling subscriptions
## Data-Oriented Architecture
{% embed url="" %}
## Unidirectional Dataflow
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
## Event-Driven (& Event-Sourcing, CQRS)
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
# Functional Programming
# Property Based Testing
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
# Key Terminology
Read this entire walkthrough.
{% embed url="" %}
#### Type / Category
A type is a mathematical concept referring to a category, in lay-speak. The more formal idea of a category is better defined as:
* Consistent groupings of **objects**
* Certain transformations between those groupings, known as **morphisms**
An **object** may also be a **morhphism**, this is where **Functors** come in.
#### Function
Denoted as `f(a)` Defines a mapping between types, taking the form:
`f: a -> b`
Where `a` is the input type and `b` is the output type.
#### Algebra
An algebra is a family of functions with the signature `f: a -> a` for a given category `a`.
#### Type Constructor
A [type constructor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_constructor) is an `n`-ary type operator taking as argument zero or more types, and returning another type. It has the type of signature:
`a -> F`
Often used to model side-effects in a program. Examples include:
`List` `Option` `Task`
#### Catamorphism
A catamorphism is a generalised morphism concept that performs an operation known as `fold` or `reduce`.
The name comes from the Greek 'ĪŗĪ±ĻĪ±-' meaning "downward or according to". A useful mnemonic is to think of a catastrophe destroying something.
{% embed url="" %}
#### Functor
A type constructor is classed as a Functor if the `lift` operation can be defined for it. To avoid further confusion let it be clear that `lift`, `map` and `fmap` can be conceptually considered equivalent.
Say we have:
`f: a -> F`
`g: b -> c`
How can we compose `f` and `g` together? `lift`ing is the process of taking `b -> c` and creating `F -> F`.
Which in turn lets us compose `a -> F` and `F -> F` trivially as `a -> F -> F` and ultimately `a -> F`.
A more complete way to define a Functor is that it is made up of two aspects:
* `A type constructor F:` a **mapping between objects** that associates to each object `X` in *a* an object in *b*
* `A function lift:` a **mapping between morphisms** that associates to each morphism in *c* a morphism in *d*
Examples:
```fsharp
let lift (g: b -> c) (fb: List) = fb |> List.map g
```
```typescript
function lift(g: (b: B) => C): (fb: Array) => Array {
return fb => fb.map(g)
}
function lift(g: (b: B) => C): (fb: Option) => Option {
return fb => (isNone(fb) ? none : some(g(fb.value)))
}
function lift(g: (b: B) => C): (fb: Task) => Task {
return fb => () => fb().then(g)
}
```
{% embed url="" %}
#### Endofunctors
An endofunctor is a functor mapping to and from the same category, `F: C -> C.`
The simplest example of an endofunctor is `id` which has the signature `a -> a`. We can define the identity endofunctor as:
```fsharp
module Identity =
// ('a -> 'b) -> Identity<'a> -> Identity<'b>
let map f (Identity x) = Identity (f x)
```
Similarly, the `Maybe` endofunctor has the form:
```haskell
instance Functor Maybe where
fmap f Nothing = Nothing
fmap f (Just x) = Just (f x)
```
If unclear, the defining property that makes a functor an endofunctor above is that `fmap` always preserves the category, which is not necessarily true for a functor.
{% embed url="" %}
#### F-Algebra
Building on the base idea of an algebra, an F-Algebra is composed of three things:
* An endofunctor `F`
* An object `a` that is "inside" the endofunctor as the carried type
* A morphism of the form `F -> a`, often called the evaluation function or the structure map
Once again, `Maybe` is an example of an F-Algebra.
```haskell
data MaybeF a c = NothingF | JustF a deriving (Show, Eq, Read)
instance Functor (MaybeF a) where
fmap _ NothingF = NothingF
fmap _ (JustF x) = JustF x
```
{% embed url="" %}
#### Semigroup
A semigroup is a pair `(A, *)` in which `A` is a non-empty set and `*` is a binary **associative** operation on `A`, i.e. a function that takes two elements of `A` as input and returns an element of `A` as output.
Effectively, this means that the `concat` morphism can be defined.
```typescript
interface Semigroup {
concat: (x: A, y: A) => A
}
const semigroupProduct: Semigroup = {
concat: (x, y) => x * y
}
const semigroupSum: Semigroup = {
concat: (x, y) => x + y
}
const semigroupString: Semigroup = {
concat: (x, y) => x + y
}
```
#### Applicative Functors
A Functor is classed as Applicative if the `apply` morphism can be defined for it, these are also simply known as Applicatives for short. In practical terms this property allows us to handle `n-ary` Functors rather than just `unary`.
`apply` as an operation on the functor instance `F` is able to **unpack** the value `F<(c: C) => D>` to a function `(fc: F) => F`.
Examples
`F = Array`
```typescript
import { flatten } from 'fp-ts/lib/Array'
const applicativeArray = {
map: (fa: Array, f: (a: A) => B): Array => fa.map(f),
of: (a: A): Array => [a],
ap: (fab: Array<(a: A) => B>, fa: Array): Array =>
flatten(fab.map(f => fa.map(f))) // flatten prevents [['a']] style output
}
```
`F = Option`
```typescript
import { Option, some, none, isNone } from 'fp-ts/lib/Option'
const applicativeOption = {
map: (fa: Option, f: (a: A) => B): Option =>
isNone(fa) ? none : some(f(fa.value)),
of: (a: A): Option => some(a),
ap: (fab: Option<(a: A) => B>, fa: Option): Option =>
isNone(fab) ? none : applicativeOption.map(fa, fab.value)
}
```
`F = Task`
```typescript
import { Task } from 'fp-ts/lib/Task'
const applicativeTask = {
map: (fa: Task, f: (a: A) => B): Task => () => fa().then(f),
of: (a: A): Task => () => Promise.resolve(a),
ap: (fab: Task<(a: A) => B>, fa: Task): Task => () =>
Promise.all([fab(), fa()]).then(([f, a]) => f(a))
}
```
{% embed url="" %}
#### Monoid
A `Monoid` is any `Semigroup` that happens to have a special value which is "neutral" with respect to `concat`. Do note, not all Semigroups are Monoids.
```typescript
import { Semigroup } from 'fp-ts/lib/Semigroup'
interface Monoid extends Semigroup {
readonly empty: A
}
```
The following laws must hold
* **Right identity**: `concat(x, empty) = x`, for all `x` in `A`
* **Left identity**: `concat(empty, x) = x`, for all `x` in `A`
```typescript
/** number `Monoid` under addition */
const monoidSum: Monoid = {
concat: (x, y) => x + y,
empty: 0
}
/** number `Monoid` under multiplication */
const monoidProduct: Monoid = {
concat: (x, y) => x * y,
empty: 1
}
const monoidString: Monoid = {
concat: (x, y) => x + y,
empty: ''
}
/** boolean monoid under conjunction */
const monoidAll: Monoid = {
concat: (x, y) => x && y,
empty: true
}
/** boolean monoid under disjunction */
const monoidAny: Monoid = {
concat: (x, y) => x || y,
empty: false
}
```
#### **Non-Monoidal Semigroup**
A trivial example of a semigroup for which `empty` cannot be defined to satisfy the right and left identity laws.
```typescript
const semigroupSpace: Semigroup = {
concat: (x, y) => x + ' ' + y
}
```
{% embed url="" %}
#### Monad
A Monad is simply a Monoid in the category of Endofunctors š.
What this practically means is that we can define the operations:
* `of: a -> M`
* `map: M -> M`
* `get: M -> a`
* `concat: M -> M -> M`
* `flatten: M> -> M`
* `flatMap: (a -> M) -> (M -> M)`
####
####
**Pending questions to directly address**:
* how does `filter` fit in?
* define transducers
* draw a diagram of related terms
* how does a catamorphism interact with the definitions of semigroup, monoid and monad?
* what is the **common** set of useful morphisms?
* map
* get
* concat
* bind / chain / of(?)
* apply
* fold
* unfold
# Domain Modelling Made Functional
{% embed url="" %}
# Functional Core, Imperative Shell
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
# Mailbox Processors
{% embed url="" %}
# Parse, donāt validate
Using the type system to separate concerns
{% embed url="" %}
# Modern Frontend Development
My opinions on web development
## Hot Takes
1. [Typescript](https://www.typescriptlang.org/) is better than Javascript
2. [The Cascading part of CSS is a mistake](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iniwPUEbPUM)
3. [CSS-in-JS](https://github.com/emotion-js/emotion) (a.k.a. CSS-in-TS) is good
4. Style overrides are almost never good
5. Immutability and purity are essential
6. [Redux is mostly irrelevant](https://kentcdodds.com/blog/application-state-management-with-react)
7. GraphQL is cool
8. [Approaches like redux-thunk and redux-saga are an anti-pattern](https://github.com/bfollington/use-stream)
9. Typescript should just add support for pattern matching and `|>`
10. Semicolons suck
11. If you've gotta use CSS, use [BEM](http://getbem.com/introduction/)
## Technology Stacks
### Web
#### React
* Typescript
* emotion
* rxjs
* Ramda (or Sanctuary)
* fp-ts
* framer-motion
* use-spring
* jest
#### Reason
* ReasonReact
* bs-css
* wonka
#### Elm
* Elm
#### F\#
* F#
* Fable
* [Feliz](https://zaid-ajaj.github.io/Feliz/)
* Elmish
### iOS
#### SwiftUI
#### React Native
# Elm
Resources and links for Elm
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
# Code Formatter Config
.prettierrc
```javascript
{
"trailingComma": "es5",
"tabWidth": 2,
"semi": false,
"singleQuote": true
}
```
# F# + Unity3d
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
# Design Systems
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
# Property-based Testing
{% embed url="" %}
# Observables & Rx
{% embed url="" %}
# Backend-as-a-Service
BaaS solutions worth considering
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
# Simple Nutrition
* Minimise sugar, aim for none
* Reduce fluffy white carbs, aim for none
* Prefer whole grains, complex carbs (better at dinner)
* High protein
* High fat, prefer unsaturated fat
* Plenty of greens
* Plenty of mushrooms
* Fast often
* Eat less
* Supplementation is worth it, but is the cherry on the cake
**Foods I am in favour of and that seem to be fairly good nutritionally**
* Mushrooms (Shiitake, Oyster, Reishi etc)
* Spinach
* Chilli
* Garlic
* Ginger
* Broccoli
* Asparagus
* Chicken
* Tofu
* Salmon
* Eggs
* Dark Chocolate
* Nuts (Almonds, Cashews)
* Bananas
* Berries
* Mangos
* Peaches
* Passionfruit
* Kiwi Fruit
**Foods I should be eating more of**
* Root vegetables
**Foods I should be eating less of**
* Beef
* Pork
**Foods I try to avoid (but often fail)**
* Bread
* Pasta
* Excessive potato or sweet potato
* Milk
* Cream
* Excessive cheese
# Fasting
I practice intermittent fasting, meaning I only eat during one window in each day. I do an 8-16 split, where my first meal is around noon and my last food is around 8pm.
I've done one 3-day water fast so far and would like to do it again, it was great.
I need to collect more concrete resources on fasting, most of my information is second hand from people like Tim Ferris and Peter Attia. Broadly though I have enjoyed the following benefits:
* More regular energy throughout the day
* Better understanding of the relationship between certain foods and mood
* Increased lean mass with minimal body fat
* Even gaining lean mass without increasing body fat noticeably
# Supplementation
The most useful supplements to me currently
#### General Wellness
* Staments 7 mushrooms
* Athletic greens whole foods
* Fish oil
#### Sleep
* Melatonin
#### Mood
* Green tea + L-Theanine
* Coffee
* 5-HTP, L-Tyrosine (Onnit: New Mood)
* CBD + full spectrum cannabinoids
#### Memory
* Bacopa Monierri
#### Cognitive / Creative
* THC
* LSD / Psilocybin
* MCT Oil
* Alpha Brain
#### Immune
* Ginger, chilli, garlic
* Tumeric (Curcumin)
* Echinnachea
#### Exercise
* Cordyceps Mushrooms (Onnit: Shroomtech Sport)
* Creatine Monohydrate
* Collagen
* Glutamine
# Exercise
My exercise goals / aspirations
Ideally some combination of:
* Steady state cardio
* Running and walking
* General day-to-day activity
* High intensity cardio
* Sprints, cycling
* Can be achieved during resistance training
* Resistance training
* Weightlifting
* Powerlifting
* Explosive
* Muscle memory and practice
* Bodybuilding
* Wide range of motion
* Powerful concentric
* Slow eccentric
* Focus on connection over weight
* Calisthenics
* Shoulder and back focused
* Stretching, mobility and stability training
* Core exercise
* Stretching routines
* Should try seriously: yoga
* Should try seriously: pilates
# Qi Gong / Tai Chi / Gong Fu
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
# Movement as the Core Principle
{% embed url="" %}
# Mobility Routines
Big stretch energy
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
{% embed url="" %}
# Daily Morning Warmup
Despite his shameful YouTube past, Mike Chang seems to have reinvented himself and has put together a fantastic morning routine. Not sure I'm on board with the mentions of Chi/Qi throughout but I can let that slide.
{% embed url="" %}
# Protein Shake Ingredients List
* Protein powder - 30g
* Glutamine - 5-10g
* Creatine - 5-10g
* MCT Oil - 15mL
* Collagen - 5-10g
Mix with chilled water, almond milk, oat milk or regular milk.
# Cardiac Disease
Let's try not to have a heart attack.
Risk factors:
* Sugar intake
* High GI carb intake
* Saturated fat intake
* Mainly animal fats
* Palm oil, coconut oil
* High sodium intake
Mitigation Factors:
* Plant fats (nuts, avocados, olive oil)
* Low GI carbs
# Cholesterol
{% embed url="" %}
# Cardiac Disease Associations by Nutrient Intake
https\://www\.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4597475/table/T1/?report=objectonly
# Sources of Dietary Fat
{% embed url="" %}
# Other People's Work
# Thriving on the Technical Leadership Path
{% embed url="" %}
# Hunter S Thompson on Meaning
Source: https\://fs.blog/2014/05/hunter-s-thompson-to-hume-logan/
April 22, 1958\
57 Perry Street\
New York City
Dear Hume,
You ask advice: ah, what a very human and very dangerous thing to do! For to give advice to a man who asks what to do with his life implies something very close to egomania. To presume to point a man to the right and ultimate goalā to point with a trembling finger in the RIGHT direction is something only a fool would take upon himself.
I am not a fool, but I respect your sincerity in asking my advice. I ask you though, in listening to what I say, to remember that all advice can only be a product of the man who gives it. What is truth to one may be disaster to another. I do not see life through your eyes, nor you through mine. If I were to attempt to give you specific advice, it would be too much like the blind leading the blind.
*"To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether ātis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles ā¦ " (Shakespeare)*
And indeed, that IS the question: whether to float with the tide, or to swim for a goal. It is a choice we must all make consciously or unconsciously at one time in our lives. So few people understand this! Think of any decision youāve ever made which had a bearing on your future: I may be wrong, but I donāt see how it could have been anything but a choice however indirectā between the two things Iāve mentioned: the floating or the swimming.
But why not float if you have no goal? That is another question. It is unquestionably better to enjoy the floating than to swim in uncertainty. So how does a man find a goal? Not a castle in the stars, but a real and tangible thing. How can a man be sure heās not after the "big rock candy mountain," the enticing sugar-candy goal that has little taste and no substance?
The answerā and, in a sense, the tragedy of lifeā is that we seek to understand the goal and not the man. We set up a goal which demands of us certain things: and we do these things. We adjust to the demands of a concept which CANNOT be valid. When you were young, let us say that you wanted to be a fireman. I feel reasonably safe in saying that you no longer want to be a fireman. Why? Because your perspective has changed. Itās not the fireman who has changed, but you. Every man is the sum total of his reactions to experience. As your experiences differ and multiply, you become a different man, and hence your perspective changes. This goes on and on. Every reaction is a learning process; every significant experience alters your perspective.
So it would seem foolish, would it not, to adjust our lives to the demands of a goal we see from a different angle every day? How could we ever hope to accomplish anything other than galloping neurosis?
The answer, then, must not deal with goals at all, or not with tangible goals, anyway. It would take reams of paper to develop this subject to fulfillment. God only knows how many books have been written on "the meaning of man" and that sort of thing, and god only knows how many people have pondered the subject. (I use the term "god only knows" purely as an expression.) Thereās very little sense in my trying to give it up to you in the proverbial nutshell, because Iām the first to admit my absolute lack of qualifications for reducing the meaning of life to one or two paragraphs.
Iām going to steer clear of the word "existentialism," but you might keep it in mind as a key of sorts. You might also try something called [Being and Nothingness](http://a-fwd.com/es=farstrblo068-21\&it=farstrblo0a-21\&fr=farstrblo08-21\&de=farstrblo07-21\&uk=farstrblo-21\&ca=farst-20\&com=farnamstreet-20\&asin-es=0671867806\&asin-it=0671867806\&asin-fr=0671867806\&asin-de=0671867806\&asin-uk=0671867806\&asin-ca=0671867806\&asin-com=0671867806) by Jean-Paul Sartre, and another little thing called [Existentialism: From Dostoyevsky to Sartre](http://a-fwd.com/es=farstrblo068-21\&it=farstrblo0a-21\&fr=farstrblo08-21\&de=farstrblo07-21\&uk=farstrblo-21\&ca=farst-20\&com=farnamstreet-20\&asin-es=0452009308\&asin-it=0452009308\&asin-fr=0452009308\&asin-de=0452009308\&asin-uk=0452009308\&asin-ca=0452009308\&asin-com=0452009308). These are merely suggestions. If youāre genuinely satisfied with what you are and what youāre doing, then give those books a wide berth. (Let sleeping dogs lie.) But back to the answer. As I said, to put our faith in tangible goals would seem to be, at best, unwise. So we do not strive to be firemen, we do not strive to be bankers, nor policemen, nor doctors. WE STRIVE TO BE OURSELVES.
But donāt misunderstand me. I donāt mean that we canāt BE firemen, bankers, or doctorsā but that we must make the goal conform to the individual, rather than make the individual conform to the goal. In every man, heredity and environment have combined to produce a creature of certain abilities and desiresā including a deeply ingrained need to function in such a way that his life will be MEANINGFUL. A man has to BE something; he has to matter.
As I see it then, the formula runs something like this: a man must choose a path which will let his ABILITIES function at maximum efficiency toward the gratification of his DESIRES. In doing this, he is fulfilling a need (giving himself identity by functioning in a set pattern toward a set goal), he avoids frustrating his potential (choosing a path which puts no limit on his self-development), and he avoids the terror of seeing his goal wilt or lose its charm as he draws closer to it (rather than bending himself to meet the demands of that which he seeks, he has bent his goal to conform to his own abilities and desires).
In short, he has not dedicated his life to reaching a pre-defined goal, but he has rather chosen a way of life he KNOWS he will enjoy. The goal is absolutely secondary: it is the functioning toward the goal which is important. And it seems almost ridiculous to say that a man MUST function in a pattern of his own choosing; for to let another man define your own goals is to give up one of the most meaningful aspects of lifeā the definitive act of will which makes a man an individual.
Letās assume that you think you have a choice of eight paths to follow (all pre-defined paths, of course). And letās assume that you canāt see any real purpose in any of the eight. THENā and here is the essence of all Iāve saidā you MUST FIND A NINTH PATH.
Naturally, it isnāt as easy as it sounds. Youāve lived a relatively narrow life, a vertical rather than a horizontal existence. So it isnāt any too difficult to understand why you seem to feel the way you do. But a man who procrastinates in his CHOOSING will inevitably have his choice made for him by circumstance.
So if you now number yourself among the disenchanted, then you have no choice but to accept things as they are, or to seriously seek something else. But beware of looking for goals: look for a way of life. Decide how you want to live and then see what you can do to make a living WITHIN that way of life. But you say, "I donāt know where to look; I donāt know what to look for."
And thereās the crux. Is it worth giving up what I have to look for something better? I donāt knowā is it? Who can make that decision but you? But even by DECIDING TO LOOK, you go a long way toward making the choice.
If I donāt call this to a halt, Iām going to find myself writing a book. I hope itās not as confusing as it looks at first glance. Keep in mind, of course, that this is MY WAY of looking at things. I happen to think that itās pretty generally applicable, but you may not. Each of us has to create our own credoā this merely happens to be mine.
If any part of it doesnāt seem to make sense, by all means call it to my attention. Iām not trying to send you out "on the road" in search of Valhalla, but merely pointing out that it is not necessary to accept the choices handed down to you by life as you know it. There is more to it than thatā no one HAS to do something he doesnāt want to do for the rest of his life. But then again, if thatās what you wind up doing, by all means convince yourself that you HAD to do it. Youāll have lots of company.
And thatās it for now. Until I hear from you again, I remain,
your friend,\
Hunter
# The Church of Interruption
Source: https\://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html
Sometimes I am startled to realize, in the middle of a discussion, that I have offended or hurt some of the people Iām talking with.
First, know and accept this: I have a friend who is a wizard. He is an ancient and wise wizard, and we have tea together. One teatime, I mentioned my talking troubles to my friend, and he said this:
"Yes, Sam, Iāll bet it is hard for you ā holding controversial \
religious beliefs, I mean."
Now, I am not a religious person; and my friend is aware of that. \
Not knowing where he was headed, I nodded for him to continue.
"Youāre a member of the Church of Interruption, you see."
I didnāt see, so again I nodded him on.
"Iām talking about how you behave when weāre talking. When you understand whatever it is Iām trying to say, you donāt wait around for me to finish my sentence, youā"
"Interrupt. Sure. Itās the easiest way to make sure I understand what you mean."
"Thatās very insightful. Youāre right; if you finish my statement in a way I agree with, I know that you understand. And, if I accept your summary, we both know youāve got it. Itās very efficient."
I waited, but he said no more. In frustration, I asked, "So whatās \
the problem? And whatās it got to do with religion? You know Iām \
notā"
"Yes, yes, I know. The problem occurs when you imagine that everyone works the same way. If I hadnāt interrupted you just now, how long would you have kept talking about things we both know? If I donāt interrupt to show you I understand ā if I donāt signal my understanding in the same way you do ā youāll just keep talking, imagining I donāt get it."
I frowned, but said nothing.
"Let me draw you a diagram." And he did, on a napkin. Iāll reproduce it for you here:
"There are two conversational dogmas. Theyāre self-consistent, you can subscribe to either one, and if you do, you will be able to happily converse with anyone else in your church. They are the Church of Interruption ā"
"Thatās mine, isnāt it? It doesnāt sound complimentary."
"It is yours, but itās just a name. Your creedo goes something like:"
> #### THE HOLY CREEDO OF THE CHURCH OF INTERRUPTION:
>
> 1. Thou shalt interrupt when thou understandāst.
> 2. Thou shalt speak until I interrupt.
> 3. Thou shalt use physical cues to indicate when I ought continue talking.
"Thereās nothing wrong with the COI. Iāll admit, though, that the \
Church of Strong Civility has a better name. Their doctrineā"
"Let me see if I can guess. One: Thou shalt not interrupt." I felt \
was catching on.
He nodded. "And?"
"Uh. Thereās more?"
> #### DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF STRONG CIVILITY
>
> 1. Thou shalt not interrupt.
> 2. Thou shalt speak briefly.
> 3. Thou shalt use physical cues to indicate your understanding and desire to speak.
"Now," he said, when I had both of these in front of me, "what \
happensā"
"āwhen a member of the COI talks to a Strong Civilist? Oh, no," and I turned red, because I was imagining all of the conversations I had completely muffed. Everything was backward! "All the evidence I read as āKeep talkingā might really be saying āSHUT UP ALREADY!ā"
He nodded.
I thought for a moment. "Okay. That makes sense. There must be signs, right? I can learn to recognize them, and thenā"
"And then what? Conversational habits youāve been building for decades wonāt work anymore. Itās a harder problem than you think; thereās not much neutral ground for ecumenical relations, and it isnāt easy to learn to be a turncoat."
"And what about the other two boxes ā the ones that sound like strange semi-human races in a Wellsian future?"
"I doubt you know much about The Meek," he said. "They get along alright with the Civilists, but if they meet the COI, they shut up tight, like mussels. If you want to learn anything from them, they must never be interrupted. Silence is the only knife thin enough to wedge into the shell of The Meek."
Here he paused, and I tried to hold my tongue, solemnly. I lasted \
a few seconds before breaking ā I was too interested in what would \
come next. "And Barkers?"
"Barkers are delightful storytellers, brilliant lecturers, and apalling conversationalists. You cannot meet a Barker on his own territory ā not if you wish to tell him anything. Conversing with a Barker is an advanced technique. The first task for you will not be talking to a Barker, but ensuring that you never become one."
"That can happen?"
"Of course! In the blink of an eye. As soon as you decide that \
someone has nothing of interest to say, you become a Barker in \
their eyes. If that happens too often, it becomes a habit ā and you \
might never talk with another human again."
He fixed me with a hard, bright eye. I shivered. Kindly, he changed \
the subject.
I reproduce our conversation here because I found it very enlightening, but understand this: while I now understand why people look hurt or offended, that understanding hasnāt really made it much easier to prevent. Not yet. Habits donāt die easily, and itās hard to keep friends who arenāt members of my Church. I wonder, though ā is the wizard also of the Church of Interruption? Or has he mastered both dogmas? Can he really talk to a Barker?
# 1000 True Fans
Original source: https\://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/
*This is an edited, updated version of an essay I wrote in 2008 when this now popular idea was embryonic and ragged. I recently rewrote it to convey the core ideas, minus out-of-date details. This revisited essay appears in Tim Ferrissā new book,* [*Tools of Titans*](https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1328683788/cooltools-20)*. I believe the 1,000 True Fans concept will be useful to anyone making things, or making things happen. If you still want to read the much longer original 2008 essay, you can get it after the end of this version. ā KK*
To be a successful creator you donāt need millions. You donāt need millions of dollars or millions of customers, millions of clients or millions of fans. To make a living as a craftsperson, photographer, musician, designer, author, animator, app maker, entrepreneur, or inventor you need only thousands of true fans.
A true fan is defined as a fan that will buy anything you produce. These diehard fans will drive 200 miles to see you sing; they will buy the hardback and paperback and audible versions of your book; they will purchase your next figurine sight unseen; they will pay for the "best-of" DVD version of your free youtube channel; they will come to your chefās table once a month. If you have roughly a thousand of true fans like this (also known as super fans), you can make a living ā if you are content to make a living but not a fortune.
Hereās how the math works. You need to meet two criteria. First, you have to create enough each year that you can earn, on average, $100 profit from each true fan. That is easier to do in some arts and businesses than others, but it is a good creative challenge in every area because it is always easier and better to give your existing customers more, than it is to find new fans.
Second, you must have a direct relationship with your fans. That is, they must pay you directly. You get to keep all of their support, unlike the small percent of their fees you might get from a music label, publisher, studio, retailer, or other intermediate. If you keep the full $100 of each true fan, then you need only 1,000 of them to earn $100,000 per year. Thatās a living for most folks.
A thousand customers is a whole lot more feasible to aim for than a million fans. Millions of paying fans is not a realistic goal to shoot for, especially when you are starting out. But a thousand fans is doable. You might even be able to remember a thousand names. If you added one new true fan per day, itād only take a few years to gain a thousand.
The number 1,000 is not absolute. Its significance is in its rough order of magnitude ā three orders less than a million. The actual number has to be adjusted for each person. If you are able to only earn $50 per year per true fan, then you need 2,000. (Likewise if you can sell $200 per year, you need only 500 true fans.) Or you may need only $75K per year to live on, so you adjust downward. Or if you are a duet, or have a partner, then you need to multiply by 2 to get 2,000 fans. For a team, you need to multiply further. But the good news is that the increase in the size of your true-fan base is geometric and linear in proportion to the size of the team; if you increase the team by 33% you only need to increase your fan base by 33%.
Another way to calculate the support of a true fan, is to aim to get one dayās wages per year from them. Can you excite or please them sufficient to earn one dayās labor? Thatās a high bar, but not impossible for 1,000 people world wide.
And of course, not every fan will be super. While the support of a thousand true fans may be sufficient for a living, for every single true fan, you might have two or three regular fans. Think of concentric circles with true fans at the center and a wider circle of regular fans around them. These regular fans may buy your creations occasionally, or may have bought only once. But their ordinary purchases expand your total income. Perhaps they bring in an additional 50%. Still, you want to focus on the super fans because the enthusiasm of true fans can increase the patronage of regular fans. True fans not only are the direct source of your income, but also your chief marketing force for the ordinary fans.
Fans, customers, patrons have been around forever. Whatās new here? A couple of things. While direct relationship with customers was the default mode in old times, the benefits of modern retailing meant that most creators in the last century did not have direct contact with consumers. Often even the publishers, studios, labels and manufacturers did not have such crucial information as the name of their customers. For instance, despite being in business for hundreds of years no New York book publisher knew the names of their core and dedicated readers. For previous creators these intermediates (and there was often more than one) meant you need much larger audiences to have a success. With the advent of ubiquitous peer-to-peer communication and payment systems ā also known as the web today ā everyone has access to excellent tools that allow anyone to sell directly to anyone else in the world. So a creator in Bend, Oregon can sell ā and deliver ā a song to someone in Katmandu, Nepal as easily as a New York record label (maybe even more easily). This new technology permits creators to maintain relationships, so that the customer can become a fan, and so that the creator keeps the total amount of payment, which reduces the number of fans needed.
This new ability for the creator to retain the full price is revolutionary, but a second technological innovation amplifies that power further. A fundamental virtue of a peer-to-peer network (like the web) is that the most obscure node is only one click away from the most popular node. In other words the most obscure under-selling book, song, or idea, is only one click away from the best selling book, song or idea. Early in the rise of the web the large aggregators of content and products, such as eBay, Amazon, Netflix, etc, noticed that the total sales of \*all\* the lowest selling obscure items would equal or in some cases exceed the sales of the few best selling items. Chris Anderson (my successor at Wired) named this effect "The Long Tail," for the visually graphed shape of the sales distribution curve: a low nearly interminable line of items selling only a few copies per year that form a long "tail" for the abrupt vertical beast of a few bestsellers. But the area of the tail was as big as the head. With that insight, the aggregators had great incentive to encourage audiences to click on the obscure items. They invented recommendation engines and other algorithms to channel attention to the rare creations in the long tail. Even web search companies like Google, Bing, Baidu found it in their interests to reward searchers with the obscure because they could sell ads in the long tail as well. The result was that the most obscure became less obscure.
If you lived in any of the 2 million small towns on Earth you might be the only one in your town to crave death metal music, or get turned on by whispering, or want a left-handed fishing reel. Before the web youād never be able to satisfy that desire. Youād be alone in your fascination. But now satisfaction is only one click away. Whatever your interests as a creator are, your 1,000 true fans are one click from you. As far as I can tell there is nothing ā no product, no idea, no desire ā without a fan base on the internet. Every thing made, or thought of, can interest at least one person in a million ā itās a low bar. Yet if even only one out of million people were interested, thatās potentially 7,000 people on the planet. That means that any 1-in-a-million appeal can find 1,000 true fans. The trick is to practically find those fans, or more accurately, to have them find you.
Now hereās the thing; the big corporations, the intermediates, the commercial producers, are all under-equipped and ill suited to connect with these thousand true fans. They are institutionally unable to find and deliver niche audiences and consumers. That means the long tail is wide open to you, the creator. Youāll have your one-in-a-million true fans to yourself. And the tools for connecting keep getting better, including the recent innovations in social media. It has never been easier to gather 1,000 true fans around a creator, and never easier to keep them near.
One of the many new innovations serving the true fan creator is crowdfunding. Having your fans finance your next product for them is genius. Win-win all around. There are about 2,000 different crowdfunding platforms worldwide, many of them specializing in specific fields: raising money for science experiments, for bands, or documentaries. Each has its own requirements and a different funding model, in addition to specialized interests. Some platforms require "all or nothing" funding goals, others permit partial funding, some raise money for completed projects, some like Patreon, fund ongoing projects. Patreon supporters might fund a monthly magazine, or a video series, or an artistās salary. The most famous and largest crowdfunder is Kickstarter, which has raised $2.5 billion for more than 100,000 projects. The average number of supporters for a successful Kickstarter project is 241 funders ā far less than a thousand. That means If you have 1,000 true fans you can do a crowdfunding campaign, because by definition a true fan will become a Kickstarter funder. (Although success of your campaign is dependent on what you ask of your fans).
The truth is that cultivating a thousand true fans is time consuming, sometimes nerve racking, and not for everyone. Done well (and why not do it well?) it can become another full-time job. At best it will be a consuming and challenging part-time task that requires ongoing skills. There are many creators who donāt want to deal with fans, and honestly should not. They should just paint, or sew, or make music, and hire someone else to deal with their superfans. If that is you and you add someone to deal with fans, a helper will skew your formula, increasing the number of fans you need, but that might be the best mix. If you go that far, then why not "subcontract" out dealing with fans to the middle people ā the labels and studios and publishers and retailers? If they work for you, fine, but remember, in most cases they would be even worse at this than you would.
The mathematics of 1,000 true fans is not a binary choice. You donāt have to go this route to the exclusion of another. Many creators, including myself, will use direct relations with super fans in addition to mainstream intermediaries. I have been published by several big-time New York publishers. I have self-published. And I have used Kickstarter to publish to my true fans. I chose each format depending on the content and my aim. But in every case, cultivating my true fans enriches the route I choose.
The takeaway: 1,000 true fans is an alternative path to success other than stardom. Instead of trying to reach the narrow and unlikely peaks of platinum bestseller hits, blockbusters, and celebrity status, you can aim for direct connection with a thousand true fans. On your way, no matter how many fans you actually succeed in gaining, youāll be surrounded not by faddish infatuation, but by genuine and true appreciation. Itās a much saner destiny to hope for. And you are much more likely to actually arrive there.
*The original 2008 essay follows. It was written before the advent of Kickstarter, Indiegogo and other crowdfunding sites, and includes more the ideaās history. ā KK*
\[Translations: [Chinese](https://service.goodcharacters.com/blog/blog.php?id=165), [Danish](http://www.stinus.net/da/1000-rigtige-fans/), [French](http://versionfrancaise.blogspot.com/2008/08/1000-vrais-fans.html), [German](http://www.flocutus.de/ubersetzungen/1000-wahre-fans/), [Hebrew](http://kk.org/thetechnium/1KTrueFans-Hebrew.pdf), [Italian](http://horizonsmusic.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/kevin-kelly-1000-veri-fans-ita/), [Japanese](http://memo7.sblo.jp/article/12799892.html), [Portuguese](http://www.empreendedor-digital.com/1000-fas-verdadeiros), [Romanian](http://webhostinggeeks.com/science/true-fans-ro), [Spanish](https://web.archive.org/web/20160316145740/https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/kk.archive/1%2C000+Fans+Verdaderos%2C+Spanish.pdf)]
The long tail is famously good news for two classes of people; a few lucky aggregators, such as Amazon and Netflix, and 6 billion consumers. Of those two, I think consumers earn the greater reward from the wealth hidden in infinite niches.
But the long tail is a decidedly mixed blessing for creators. Individual artists, producers, inventors and makers are overlooked in the equation. The long tail does not raise the sales of creators much, but it does add massive competition and endless downward pressure on prices. Unless artists become a large aggregator of other artistās works, the long tail offers no path out of the quiet doldrums of minuscule sales.
Other than aim for a blockbuster hit, what can an artist do to escape the long tail?
One solution is to find 1,000 True Fans. While some artists have discovered this path without calling it that, I think it is worth trying to formalize. The gist of 1,000 True Fans can be stated simply:
A creator, such as an artist, musician, photographer, craftsperson, performer, animator, designer, videomaker, or author ā in other words, anyone producing works of art ā needs to acquire only 1,000 True Fans to make a living.
A True Fan is defined as someone who will purchase anything and everything you produce. They will drive 200 miles to see you sing. They will buy the super deluxe re-issued hi-res box set of your stuff even though they have the low-res version. They have a Google Alert set for your name. They bookmark the eBay page where your out-of-print editions show up. They come to your openings. They have you sign their copies. They buy the t-shirt, and the mug, and the hat. They canāt wait till you issue your next work. They are true fans.
To raise your sales out of the flatline of the long tail you need to connect with your True Fans directly. Another way to state this is, you need to convert a thousand Lesser Fans into a thousand True Fans.
Assume conservatively that your True Fans will each spend one dayās wages per year in support of what you do. That "one-day-wage" is an average, because of course your truest fans will spend a lot more than that. Letās peg that *per diem* each True Fan spends at $100 per year. If you have 1,000 fans that sums up to $100,000 per year, which minus some modest expenses, is a living for most folks.
One thousand is a feasible number. You could count to 1,000. If you added one fan a day, it would take only three years. True Fanship is doable. Pleasing a True Fan is pleasurable, and invigorating. It rewards the artist to remain true, to focus on the unique aspects of their work, the qualities that True Fans appreciate.
The key challenge is that you have to maintain direct contact with your 1,000 True Fans. They are giving you their support directly. Maybe they come to your house concerts, or they are buying your DVDs from your website, or they order your prints from Pictopia. As much as possible you retain the full amount of their support. You also benefit from the direct feedback and love.
The technologies of connection and small-time manufacturing make this circle possible. Blogs and RSS feeds trickle out news, and upcoming appearances or new works. Web sites host galleries of your past work, archives of biographical information, and catalogs of paraphernalia. Diskmakers, Blurb, rapid prototyping shops, Myspace, Facebook, and the entire digital domain all conspire to make duplication and dissemination in small quantities fast, cheap and easy. You donāt need a million fans to justify producing something new. A mere one thousand is sufficient.
This small circle of diehard fans, which can provide you with a living, is surrounded by concentric circles of Lesser Fans. These folks will not purchase everything you do, and may not seek out direct contact, but they will buy much of what you produce. The processes you develop to feed your True Fans will also nurture Lesser Fans. As you acquire new True Fans, you can also add many more Lesser Fans. If you keep going, you may indeed end up with millions of fans and reach a hit. I donāt know of any creator who is not interested in having a million fans.
But the point of this strategy is to say that you donāt need a hit to survive. You donāt need to aim for the short head of best-sellerdom to escape the long tail. There is a place in the middle, that is not very far away from the tail, where you can at least make a living. That mid-way haven is called 1,000 True Fans. It is an alternate destination for an artist to aim for.
Young artists starting out in this digitally mediated world have another path other than stardom, a path made possible by the very technology that creates the long tail. Instead of trying to reach the narrow and unlikely peaks of platinum hits, bestseller blockbusters, and celebrity status, they can aim for direct connection with 1,000 True Fans. Itās a much saner destination to hope for. You make a living instead of a fortune. You are surrounded not by fad and fashionable infatuation, but by True Fans. And you are much more likely to actually arrive there.
A few caveats. This formula ā one thousand direct True Fans ā is crafted for one person, the solo artist. What happens in a duet, or quartet, or movie crew? Obviously, youāll need more fans. But the additional fans youāll need are in direct geometric proportion to the increase of your creative group. In other words, if you increase your group size by 33%, you need add only 33% more fans. This linear growth is in contrast to the exponential growth by which many things in the digital domain inflate. I would not be surprised to find that the value of your True Fans network follows the standard network effects rule, and increases as the square of the number of Fans. As your True Fans connect with each other, they will more readily increase their average spending on your works. So while increasing the numbers of artists involved in creation increases the number of True Fans needed, the increase does not explode, but rises gently and in proportion.
A more important caution: Not every artist is cut out, or willing, to be a nurturer of fans. Many musicians just want to play music, or photographers just want to shoot, or painters paint, and they temperamentally donāt want to deal with fans, **especially** True Fans. For these creatives, they need a mediator, a manager, a handler, an agent, a galleryist ā someone to manage their fans. Nonetheless, they can still aim for the same middle destination of 1,000 True Fans. They are just working in a duet.
Third distinction. Direct fans are best. The number of True Fans needed to make a living **indirectly** inflates fast, but not infinitely. Take blogging as an example. Because fan support for a blogger routes through advertising clicks (except in the occasional [tip-jar](http://tipjoy.com/)), more fans are needed for a blogger to make a living. But while this moves the destination towards the left on the long tail curve, it is still far short of blockbuster territory. Same is true in book publishing. When you have corporations involved in taking the majority of the revenue for your work, then it takes many times more True Fans to support you. To the degree an author cultivates direct contact with his/her fans, the smaller the number needed.
Lastly, the actual number may vary depending on the media. Maybe it is 500 True Fans for a painter and 5,000 True Fans for a videomaker. The numbers must surely vary around the world. But in fact the actual number is not critical, because it cannot be determined except by attempting it. Once you are in that mode, the actual number will become evident. That will be the True Fan number that works for you. My formula may be off by an order of magnitude, but even so, its far less than a million.
Iāve been scouring the literature for any references to the True Fan number. [Suck.com](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suck.com) co-founder Carl Steadman had theory about microcelebrities. By his count, a microcelebrity was someone famous to 1,500 people. So those fifteen hundred would rave about you. As quoted by [Danny OāBrien](https://www.oblomovka.com/entries/2004/08/08#1091959020), "One person in every town in Britain likes your dumb online comic. Thatās enough to keep you in beers (or T-shirt sales) all year."
Others call this microcelebrity support micro-patronage, or distributed patronage.
In 1999 John Kelsey and Bruce Schneier published a model for this in First Monday, an online journal. They called it the [Street Performer Protocol](http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_6/kelsey/).
> Using the logic of a street performer, the author goes directly to the readers before the book is published; perhaps even before the book is written. The author bypasses the publisher and makes a public statement on the order of: "When I get $100,000 in donations, I will release the next novel in this series."
>
> Readers can go to the authorās Web site, see how much money has already been donated, and donate money to the cause of getting his novel out. Note that the author doesnāt care who pays to get the next chapter out; nor does he care how many people read the book that didnāt pay for it. He just cares that his $100,000 pot gets filled. When it does, he publishes the next book. In this case "publish" simply means "make available," not "bind and distribute through bookstores." The book is made available, free of charge, to everyone: those who paid for it and those who did not.
In 2004 author [Lawrence Watt-Evans ](http://www.ethshar.com/thesprigganexperiment0.html)used this model to publish his newest novel. He asked his True Fans to collectively pay $100 per month. When he got $100 he posted the next chapter of the novel. The entire book was published online for his True Fans, and then later in paper for all his fans. He is now writing a second novel this way. He gets by on an estimated 200 True Fans because he also publishes in the traditional manner ā with advances from a publisher supported by thousands of Lesser Fans. Other authors who use fans to directly support their work are [Diane Duane](http://www.the-big-meow.com/), [Sharon Lee and Steve Miller](http://www.korval.com/fledgling/), and [Don Sakers](http://www.readersadvice.com/mmeade/scatwlds/sponsor.html). Game designer [Greg Stolze](http://www.gregstolze.com/ransom.html) employed a similar True Fan model to launch [two pre-financed games](http://www.danielsolis.com/meatbot/ransom.html). Fifty of his True Fans contributed seed money for his development costs.
The genius of the True Fan model is that the fans are able to move an artist away from the edges of the long tail to a degree larger than their numbers indicate. They can do this in three ways: by purchasing more per person, by spending directly so the creator keeps more per sale, and by enabling new models of support.
New models of support include micro-patronage. Another model is pre-financing the startup costs. Digital technology enables this fan support to take many shapes. [Fundable](http://www.fundable.org/) is a web-based enterprise which allows anyone to raise a fixed amount of money for a project, while reassuring the backers the project will happen. Fundable withholds the money until the full amount is collected. They return the money if the minimum is not reached.
Hereās an example from Fundableās site;
> Amelia, a twenty-year-old classical soprano singer, pre-sold her first CD before entering a recording studio. "If I get $400 in pre-orders, I will be able to afford the rest \[of the studio costs]," she told potential contributors. Fundableās all-or-nothing model ensured that none of her customers would lose money if she fell short of her goal. Amelia sold over $940 in albums.
A thousand dollars wonāt keep even a starving artist alive long, but with serious attention, a dedicated artist can do better with their True Fans. [Jill Sobule](http://www.jillsobule.com/jetpackintro.html), a musician who has nurtured a sizable following over many years of touring and recording, is doing well relying on her True Fans. Recently she decided to go to her fans to finance the $75,000 professional recording fees she needed for her next album. She has raised close to $50,000 so far. By directly supporting her via their patronage, the fans gain intimacy with their artist. According to the [Associated Press](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_en_mu/music_making_jill_s_cd):
> Contributors can choose a level of pledges ranging from the $10 "unpolished rock," which earns them a free digital download of her disc when itās made, to the $10,000 "weapons-grade plutonium level," where she promises "you get to come and sing on my CD. Donāt worry if you canāt sing ā we can fix that on our end." For a $5,000 contribution, Sobule said sheāll perform a concert in the donorās house. The lower levels are more popular, where donors can earn things like an advanced copy of the CD, a mention in the liner notes and a T-shirt identifying them as a "junior executive producer" of the CD.
The usual alternative to making a living based on True Fans is poverty. A study as recently as 1995 showed that the accepted price of being an artist was large. Sociologist [Ruth Towse](http://books.google.com/books?id=eDb1GI3Nr-cC\&pg=PA96\&vq=The+Value+of+Culture:+On+the+Relationship+Between+Economics+and+Arts\&source=gbs_toc_r\&cad=0_0\&sig=9QEYLk6aBQ9Cv39M2AuDDYFQ7NI#PPA99,M1) surveyed artists in Britian and determined that on average they earned below poverty subsistence levels.
I am suggesting there is a home for creatives in between poverty and stardom. Somewhere lower than stratospheric bestsellerdom, but higher than the obscurity of the long tail. I donāt know the actual true number, but I think a dedicated artist could cultivate 1,000 True Fans, and by their direct support using new technology, make an honest living. Iād love to hear from anyone who might have settled on such a path.
# Journal Articles
{% embed url="" %}
Psilocybin + Meditation
{% endembed %}
# Techniques
{% embed url="" %}
# Clover Update Steps
* Clone `boot` to backup
* Mount `backup` EFI partition
* Backup `boot` EFI config
* Keep backups of historical EFI config with datestamps
* Boot from `backup` to confirm
* Reboot into `boot`
* Update `clover`
* Check what it's trying to install
* If all good, copy new clover config to `backup` disk EFI partition so they match
* Test `backup` still boots correctly
Get the latest Clover build from