It only takes a few big winners to have a great year (if handled correctly). O’Neil had 2 of these monsters (over 100%) from this list in ‘63. Pic is from The Haller Theory Of Stock Market Trends - 1965 by Gilbert Haller.

So I was talking to @gewt about Job: A Comedy of Justice and I came up with a theory that I think explains why Heinlein's late-period work is so kinda-terrible and why I still enjoy it so much

So Heinlein had always been very interesting in the short parts of his novels, like the little snippets inside chapters. He had a very fun writing style, and wrote some fun dialogue with fun characters, right?>
It probably comes from how much of his early stuff was short fiction

And I think what happened with a lot of his longer works is that he'd just start writing fun bits and hope it would end up going somewhere or having a bigger plot by the end. like eventually he'd figure out where this was going, then go back and rewrite it into a cohesive whole

and I'm sure he had editors that'd help this process. No editor would let you publish something as rambly and changing-gears-every-other-chapter as The Number Of The Beast, for example... unless you were God-King Of Science Fiction 1980s Robert Heinlein.

so basically I think what happened is that by the 80s (when he was in his seventies!!) he lost the drive to go back and rewrite and he was too Untouchable for editors to make him.

My dad led an organization of over 300,000 employees.

When I took on my biggest marketing & events team to date (35 employees) I asked him how the *heck* he did it. Here's what he said and what helped me every day. 🧵

Remember you're leading all the employees under you, but you're not *managing* them all. You're managing your direct reports, which should be 5-7 individuals max. Focus on them.

When you interact with the employees you don't manage directly, get to know them as people first, that'll be the most valuable information in leading them. Remembering everything you learn about them is hard, but doing so will make you a superhero.

If you're not going to empower the managers under you, why do you have them? If you see room for improvement, let the manager know and let them make the change on their teams and come to you with questions/concerns. This will save you SO much time.

If you're the smartest person in any room - you're doing it wrong. As a leader, your job is bringing together the best people to get the job done - your skillset is identifying those people, not being one of them.

Trump on climate: I don't believe it. Trump on Khashoggi: I don't believe it. Trump on Russia: I don't believe it. Idiocy? A canny game? Doesn't really matter as much as the underlying intellectual autocracy. In this administration only one opinion matters.

It's an assault on facts and reason. It's an assault on good governance. It's an assault on the bureaucracies that are being discounted. It's an assault on science and history. But it is also an assault on one of the underpinnings of democracy.

We live in a system that is grounded on the idea of collaborative government. Leaders may have a final word but even then, there are typically checks and balances. Hopefully, in this case, such checks and balances may work. But they also are being tested.

The president's position that he is smarter than all the world's scientists, than the entire intelligence community, than experts who have studied any issue all their lives, is, of course, asinine. But his belief that government turns solely on his opinion, is monarchic.

Louis XIV reportedly said, "L'etat est moi." That he was the state. Trump asserting that he knows better than all, discounts all advice, that his brain is enough to chart the course for America alone, is essentially saying the same thing.