I shared this on my FB page and asked, can ya really blame him?

I was half kidding. I also assumed someone would think of what I did pretty quickly and waiting for the comment to mention what I assumed was obvious.

The timing. I was sure someone else had thought of it.

OK, more housekeeping ahead of putting this account up on blocks.

#BurnNotice - search for that coming from my account, you'll learn some things about troubles in late 2020.

But this is going to be pretty meta, it's about what goes a #BurnNotice and why.

We've used the #BurnNotice tag in the past to denote an entity that is in need of special attention. That practice dates back to 2011/2012 and lapsed some time ago.

This is a more traditional sort of

Let's put some bounds on this. Those in a #BurnNotice are NOT:

1) people I dislike

2) people I think are competitors in some fashion

3) "feds", whatever you people mean by this undefined term.

4) informants. Got a list of those, too, it's handled differently.

The #BurnNotice is more focused on people who present as if they might be working for Erik

Or maybe they work for Tiger

8 rules the top play by that those at the bottom should adopt.

— Thread
(requested by followers)

1. Leverage

Most poor people don't leverage. Trying to get everything done yourself will limit you to only how much you can do.

Get more hands working for you, and find a way to pay or show them what's in it for them.

2. Trust

When doing business, poor people would require collateral from strangers, but excuse those close to them because they *trust* them.

That's how you get scammed.

The unspoken rule is to know your safety net whenever you're not taking collateral.

Never need to trust.

3. Morality

Never seen a very successful businessman say "This is not a good thing, it's evil."

It's either good for business or bad for business. Its either effective or ineffective.

Morality will only limit you.

4. Reciprocity

Expecting someone to help you because you helped them in the past is ludicrous.

If you're no longer useful to them, people have no reason to help you.

"Whenever you see water flowing upstream it means someone it repaying a kindness."

— 48 Laws Of Power

THREAD: On the full-fledged process of responding to a Revise-And-Resubmit (R&R).

I have written pieces of the process, but I hadn't actually written a thread or a blog post showcasing how all my blog posts fit with one another. I teach this process when I give workshops.

So here's what I do (now), and let me share a lesson from my past lives:

DO NOT SIT ON R&Rs.

I know, they're painful and scary and sometimes we don't know if our paper will get rejected in the end.

But remember, an R&R means an OPPORTUNITY to get your paper published.

Sitting on R&Rs, leaving them for later, and not prioritizing them has gotten me fewer publications. I know this for a fact. I am not ashamed of admitting that I have sometimes felt that I will not be capable of responding to multiple (often conflicting) comments.

HOWEVER...

Sustained, frequent advice from professors who are senior to me (though I am senior myself now too) is always the same and on-point:

The goal is the R&R.

You're not getting a desk rejection.

You are getting your work read, reviewed carefully, thought about, responded to.

What do I do now (and have been doing for the past few years, with success)

When I get the R&R (the "decision letter"), I make sure to calm down, because I am always afraid I'm going to get nasty comments. These have been (luckily) very rarely present in my latest submissions.

My morning thought. I think what's most incompatible about the way I think and the journal article format as a means of capturing and validating thought is that I have a completely different sense of the relation between tentativeness, rigor, and informatic compression.

The characteristic Pete thought is: wait a minute, this whole area is dominated by an assumption that no one seems to be questioning, and I've got two options to express that: i) outline the logic of the issue in a quick and compressed way, ii) write a small book with references.

The discipline seems to want something in between these poles every single time, and this makes me extremely anxious because I feel (with good reason) like any partially referential engagement with the issue will get instantly torpedoed by anyone outside its referential remit.

To repeat something I've said before: I'm actually quite good at being *concise*, I just find it very hard to be *brief*, because most of the thoughts I have don't permit brevity. Consider what your (referential) reactions are to this brief piece:

One of the main genres of publication I've actually excelled in over the years is dictionary articles, which I take a lot of joy in writing, and include some of the pieces of which I'm most proud. Consider this one on the crux of Meillassoux's project: