- EVERYTHING either benefits or is harmed by volatility
- The FRAGILE is harmed (think a glass)
- The ROBUST is unchanged (think The Phoenix)
- The ANTIFRAGILE gets better (think The Hydra)
15 Powerful Lessons from the book "Antifragile"
by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
| Thread
- EVERYTHING either benefits or is harmed by volatility
- The FRAGILE is harmed (think a glass)
- The ROBUST is unchanged (think The Phoenix)
- The ANTIFRAGILE gets better (think The Hydra)
- There is no way to accurately predict WHICH events will occur
- We CAN measure how fragile we are to events
- We CAN take steps to robustify ourselves
- When shit hits the fan, the fragile breaks
- This applies to the economy, politics, health, etc
- Systems are COMPLEX
- Most are beyond our understanding
- When we intervene, we introduce potential harm
- These 2nd and 3rd order effects introduce MORE volatility into the system
- This makes systems even less predictable
- STAY in YOUR lane
- Less can be More
- Don't add, subtract
- Eliminate the Artificial
- Eliminate the Unnatural
- Eliminate the Unnecessary
Apply these in all areas of your life. When in doubt, SUBTRACT
Just because...
- you can't see something doesn't mean it's not there
- something is unintelligible doesn't mean it's unintelligent
- you can't explain something doesn't mean it's not important
-->Have HUMILITY
- "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you"
- We often don't know how we want to be treated
- We always know how we DON'T want to be treated
- "Right" can be relative, "wrong" is almost always wrong
It does not mean that one reason is better than two, just that by invoking more than one reason you are trying to convince yourself to do something.
Obvious decisions require no more than a single reason.
Likewise with randomness, uncertainty, chaos: you want to use them, not hide from them.
You want to be the fire and wish for the wind.
These types often consider themselves the “victims” of some large plot.
And retweet the first tweet to share with others:
https://t.co/1PE9qfXmEN
15 Powerful Lessons from the book "Antifragile"
— Andrew Duggan (@ajdduggan) March 30, 2022
by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
| Thread pic.twitter.com/a1Xhi9ZftN
More from Andrew Duggan
More from Books
You May Also Like
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.