Given events over recent days (weeks, months) a few quick thoughts on policy & comms during a crisis.
Caveat: this may all seem elementary to some.
Tone: offered with due humility (based on hard Whitehall failures, as well as some relative successes).

1) Communicate contingency, don’t cloak it. Every big policy decision will be dependent on events HMG can’t control. Pretending otherwise will hurt you. Offering false optimism / certainty generates corrosive public cynicism not hope.

2) Go early, go big. When the risks of (in)action are asymmetric then err on the side of swift, aggressive measures that can be unwound in the event they aren't needed. Don’t play catch-up with something contagious (virus, bank runs). Never assume things can’t get worse.

3) Work across the aisle. Crises mean co-operating with those you don’t agree with - whether in devolved govts, cities, unions or other parties. At some point you'll need them. This can be frustrating. Suck it up. Never burn trust by looking partisan when lives/jobs are at stake

4) Sequencing & co-ordination *really* matter. The public will accept painful measures arising from a new mutant strain. But will punish mistakes due to Whitehall ineptness (eg. lack of sync between economic support & restrictions). Never forget: UK = complex multi-national state

I think I should spam your timelines with my fav Christmas songs

Let's start with my all time

Growing up every Christmas my father always played Jim Reeves. He did so yesterday night too. Old is gold as they

I only heard this version recently
Till this my fav was the Kenny Rogers version
But these guys just blew me

NGL
I have always had a crush on the

Another one of my dad's

Why Gandhi Will Never Be A Mahatma?

Some of the most interesting parts of @Ram_Guha book concern another group Gandhi sought to instruct: women. Two sections in particular are likely to raise eyebrows. The first is Guha’s account of Gandhi’s relationship with the writer and

singer Saraladevi Chaudhurani in 1919-20. Gandhi was, by then, celibate; both he and Sarala were married to other people. Yet their letters speak openly of desire — “You still continue to haunt me even in my sleep,” he wrote to her — and he told friends, “I call her my spiritual

wife.” He signed his letters to her Law Giver, which, as Guha observes, was “a self-regarding appellation that reveals his desire to have Sarala conform to his ways.” Gandhi’s friends appear to have talked him out of making this “spiritual marriage” public. Eventually he

distanced himself, confessing that he did not have the “infinitely higher purity” in practice “that I possess in thought” to maintain a “marriage” that was perfectly spiritual.

The second section that will provoke controversy tackles an even more sensitive subject: Gandhi’s

notorious brahmacharya experiments, beginning in 1946. When Gandhi was involved with Sarala, he was 50 and she was 47, a mature woman exercising her own free will. Nearly three decades later, when he was 77, he made the decision to “test” his vow of chastity by sleeping in a bed

Today we come to the topic @EconTalker has called one of the more underemphasized lessons from #AdamSmith: That the Division of Labor is limited by the Extent of the Market. a.k.a Book 1 Chapter 3. #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

We love ya, Smith, but we see why people don't dwell on this chapter. Unless they are really into the navigable waterways of the late 18th century. (I.iii.3–8) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets #RiverEnthusiastsRejoice

The first two paragraphs of this chapter are the meatiest. Then things get a little...#WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

The more people there are to trade with, the more labor can be divided. Wealth of the people included in the market increases disproportionately as the division of labor progresses. Because division of labor is special sauce. (I.iii.1-2)#WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

This seems like common sense. No one to trade with? You won't produce stuff for trade. Instead you'll produce the things you need, and because you need many things you won't specialize. No specialization, no division of labor. (I.iii.1–2) #WealthOfTweets #SmithTweets

What's the difference between these 3 images? Why is one the ubiquitous example of great style, another the joke everyone wants to avoid becoming, and the last what your typical guy looks like?

I'll explain.

Great style consists of two things - positive aesthetics and cultural relevance.

Positive aesthetics simply means it has to look good - it should follow the rules of proportion and symmetry, the colors should be flattering, etc.

Positive aesthetics are why we love period pieces and classic old style.

The clothing visuals we love are those that are pleasing to the eye and give us a sense of satisfaction while looking at them.

But positive aesthetics aren't enough.

You can't throw on a toga, or a kilt, or a 19th-century 3-piece suit and walk around in it today because, as beautiful as the aesthetics are, there's no cultural relevance.

This is the biggest mistake the gentledorks make - all aesthetics, no relevance and it's actually why most of the guys you see doing period dress are culturally insignificant guys with no social status or standing.

I wrote a book about the Fairness Doctrine and how it was responsible for one of the worst episodes of government censorship in US history.

So I am somewhat alarmed at the calls percolating on Twitter for a new, internet Fairness Doctrine. This is a thread about why that is.

Let's start with what most people think when they hear "Fairness Doctrine." They imagine a time at an indeterminate point in the past when mass media was reasonable, balanced, equitable, and fair. It was a veritable golden age of mass media and the Fairness Doctrine was to thank.

Back then, radio & tv stations couldn't just air their opinions, spreading unchecked misinformation. No, they had to let the other side of any given issue have a say, giving the good guys a chance to check the bad guys when they told bald lies.

However, the problem with this narrative is that it is almost entirely a myth. In actuality, the Fairness Doctrine was a tool wielded by political interests in order to suppress dissident speech & prevent activists (from both Left & Right) from exposing the lies of the powerful.

But telling that story requires going back before the first major test of the Fairness Doctrine in 1963, before the rules were created in 1949, all the way back to the first meaningful attempt at federal regulation of radio in 1927.

I do this every December — take a shot at my Top 25 Jazz Albums of the year. My 2020 list is pretty interesting, I think — inside, outside, international... some Charles Tolliver, some Sun Ra, some less familiar things. Here we go...

#25.... Top 25 Jazz Albums of 2020

Black Art Jazz Collective: "Ascension" (High

#24... Top 25 Jazz Albums of 2020

Chick Corea: "Plays" (Concord)

I'm tickled by Chick's Scarlatti...

#23... Top 25 Jazz Albums of 2020

Irreversible Entanglements with Moor Mother: "Who Sent You?" (International

#22... Top 25 Jazz Albums of 2020

Micah Thomas: "Tide"

Damasio in his book 'The Strange Order of Things' argues that the core of condition lies in homeostasis. I agree with this generalization. But let me work out in a tweet storm how consciousness relates to homeostasis.

Human consciousness is related to awareness of surprising or threatening observations. It's an error-correcting mechanism that lends attention to discrepancies of our expectations of the world.

The mind is composed of many layers of cognition. Also, its massive parallelism implies reducing the conditional checks required for error correction.

To do this, consciousness is engaged only in a time-sliced manner in a periodic manner. The majority of time spent is in unconscious activity with only periodic activation of the conscious error-correcting process.

The system 1 unconscious intuitive mechanism minimizes the effort of performing error correction. It is automated and driven by habit. It is like a river flowing without obstructions.

~°My lovely enemy°~
SUAYEON AU

Sua and Siyeon have been enemies for 4 years. This is their final year in college, will they make amends? Maybe become something even more? Maybe the verbal sticks they threw were a facade.

[CHARACTERS]

¤Bora¤
• On the surface shes confident
• She loves to dance
• Her stepsister is Minji
• Shes 22 (their age gaps dont apply)
• Dance Major

Siyeon
• Shes cold one the surface
• Singing is her passion
• she doesnt sing often
• smart
• Her best friend is Yoohyeon, her sister is Gahyeon

Handong
• Savage queen
• She is protective
• 21
• language major

We may be alone in the 🌌 ENTIRE UNIVERSE.

(a thread on this bold conjecture)

🎉 It's also my 1st podcast episode https://t.co/7u2FskrhHi

1/ For my inaugural podcast episode, I interviewed @anderssandberg who is a senior research fellow at the @fhioxford.

I highly recommend listening to the entire episode. It's full of gems and insights.

But if you want key ideas, keep reading this

2/ Before we get to that, here's what we talk about in the hour-long conversation.

3/ Both history and science fiction shows us how the world can be dramatically different than what it is today.

4/ But exponential curves (like Moore's law) make it hard to predict the future because early on they look like linear

I've been working at @podcastnotes for almost 2 years.

During that time, I've taken notes on 400+ podcasts.

Here are my top 10 favorite podcasts of all-time.

(thread) 🧵

10/ Naval Ravikant (@naval) on The Knowledge Project (@ShaneAParrish)

Taking notes on this podcast landed me the job at PN and introduced me to the vast wisdom of Naval.

I loved learning about Naval's reading system, his advice on happiness, how he views habits, and much more.

9/ Josh Wolfe (@wolfejosh) on Invest Like The Best (@patrick_oshag)

Josh is a brilliant investor with an arsenal of fascinating mental models.

A few of my favorites:

• Don't be boring (2x)
• 100-0-100 investing strategy
• Chips on shoulders put chips in pockets

8/ Mike Tyson (@MikeTyson) on JRE (@joerogan)

Mike is a savage but he's also incredibly wise.

Growing up, he studied all the great conquerors from Genghis Khan to Charlemagne. What did he learn from that? The hardest thing to conquer is yourself. A must-watch podcast for sure.

7/ Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) on The Portal (@EricRWeinstein)

Bret discovered that tests on lab mice were flawed because of selected breeding and that basically all drug testing should be redone.

He should've won a Nobel Prize for that discovery but he got robbed.

#Thread

BHAKTI MARG ACCORDING TO SHIVAPURAN

There Nothing is more pleasurable than the Path of Bhakti in all the Loka's and in all the four Yuga, whoever dives in this sacred ocean of Ishwara's Bhakti , can definitely attain Mokshā and get relief from BhavaSagara ,

it is more pleasing in the Kali Yuga as compared to others., The reason is the lack of both knowledge and disinterest in humans.

Bhakti is the only path through which we can connect with Ishwara and whoever become hurdle in Ishwara's Devotees with bad intentions he is always

punishable by Ishwara.

The Bhakti which is inspired by Shashtra's and is surrendered to Ishwara by heart selflessly , considered to be श्रेष्ठ , and which is full of Selfishness is always called निम्नकोटी भक्ति .

Both these types of devotion are of two types in terms of नैष्ठि and अनैष्ठि

- there are 6 types of नैष्ठि and
- 1 of अनैष्ठि

There are mainly two types of devotion -

1) सगुण
2) निर्गुण

The nine parts of both Nirguna and Saguna have been described, which is something like this -

● श्रवण - Hearing the Lord's Kirtan by drowning in devotion.

● कीर्तन - Performing bhajan with pure devotion by singing the glory of the Lord.

OK, let's start talking about the House's 80 page brief on impeachment. It really is an incredibly well-done piece of work. There are some things I'd do differently and some pieces I didn't love, but overall, it's very very good.

Again - this thread will happen in fits and starts. I'm swamped at work and this will come in 10-15 minute chunks as I take a break

Let's start by taking a look at the table of contents. After a 4-page intro (that's relatively long, don't love it), the brief spends a solid 30 pages walking through the facts underlying the impeachment - and, the subheadings tell us, tying in Trump's general refusal to accept

the election results with everything that followed. This is a strong rhetorical approach, but it comes with dangers: the President not only had a legal right to contest the election results, but the GOP Senators pretty much all backed that right, strongly.

It's going to be important to thread a needle of saying "this set the stage for what came after" without putting yourself in a place where you're trying to convince the Senate that the challenges themselves were impeachable. That won't fly

@Pontifex During last Sunday Mass it was said red is a color of bloodshed. True, but women experience red each month. It is a knowledge that new life is possible. It is also a color of birth for new life arriving. We are all united by blood regardless of race, creed or color.

It is absolutely possible to bleed without hurting anyone. It is absolutely possible to bleed without self injury. Ask any woman. God gave us that power. It's time for peaceful bloodshed in the Vatican. Bring the women priests into the community. Include us in faith.

The exclusion of equity and the disregard of women has resulted in this in Canada. The richest 44 people have made 53 Billion during Covid. We cannot afford to keep this going. They have no inheritance tax.

Canada was founded upon the clear disregard of women. Canada is actively human trafficking people by making us wards of the state with welfare, prisons, residential schools and poverty. They turned our own blood into a tool to strip us of our rights by blood quantum laws.

We need to recognize God in women. It was my grandmothers who administered the sacraments of last rights & baptism as midwife/healer when Priests were unavailable. If a baby is dying, it had to be done and it was with love. It brought peace. My grandma did that. Why deny love.

🔥Massive Book Thread!🔥

In 2020 I read 24 books.

Here is each book and the biggest lesson from it.

There may be more, and I encourage you to read, and learn to find them.

In 2020 I determined to "level up" and now I'm sharing a year worth of lessons.

👇

1: When by Daniel Pink

Timing is everything. And it's nothing.

When you do something has a huge impact on it's impact.

Don't worry, you can't perfectly time anything, so instead, just choose to act on what's most important NOW.

Use the concept of compounding in everything!

2: The Art Of War

The mind is your most powerful weapon. All else is just a tool.

Leverage strengths. Minimize weaknesses.

Don't fool yourself into thinking you're something you aren't.

Some days, living to fight another day is your only option. Be grateful for life.

3: The Corner Office by Adam Bryant

Meh.

The best lessons of this book are better taught by Carol Dweck and Angela Duckworth. Read Mindset and Grit.

Some CEO's have no idea how they got to where they are, and less idea how to get you there.

Stay curious and determined.

4: The Power Of Habit by Charles Duhigg

One of the best of the year.

Key habits can impact all else. Start working out and watch your desire to drink water and eat better improve.

Ignore habits forming at your own risk. They create or destroy, but you choose.

Today I'm thinking about culture - A long time ago I was cooking with a French friend and we made fried yams. While we were cleaning up, I noticed him begin to empty the pan of oil into the sink and I almost had a heart attack. I grabbed it from him and said "We don't do that!"

Now I wonder, who was "we"? I grew up in a home where used oil was always saved for another day. But it's possible that this was because I was from a lower middle income home. It's what I knew and I couldn't imagine it another way. Why do we do the things we do?

Went to a restaurant to a friend recently and she told me to try their crêpes. I told her I didn't understand crêpes and preferred pancakes. That I thought crêpes were inferior to pancakes. Then she pointed out to me that this might have something to do with colonial history.

The British eat pancakes and the French eat crêpes. Nigerians eat pancakes, Senegalese eat crêpes. This was a revelation for me. My perceived personal choice transformed into colonial legacy. I started to look out for other stuff and came up with some questions.

Do we like bread with beans because it is a version of the British beans on toast that we may have been introduced to? How about fish and chips? You can't compare both versions but it's the same idea. How many things do we think are ours but were actually introduced recently?