It's been a long time since I said it, and who knows if there'll be a chance to do so in the future. So here goes:
I've learned more by being on Twitter than I could have imagined, and it was possible only because so many excellent people say so many amazing things. So thank you

💥BOOM💥 Linn Wood!! They can't stop what is coming!
Chief Justice John Roberts must resign today. Over the past several weeks, I have met with a courageous whistleblower who has risked his life to tell you the truth. Jeffrey Epstein arranged for the...
Part 1.1

#Suven – Journey of my first 50 bagger…

I bought #Suven first in Apr 2013 around Rs 20…today after almost 7.5 years, its Rs 1000 (Suven pharma 920 adjusted for bonus + Suven Life 80)..CAGR of almost 68% for 7.5 years. I am fortunate to hold it throughout the journey and

1/n

add on multiple occasions on way up. Like to share my experience in this thread for everyone’s benefit..

First time I bought because I like the management focus on R&D. It had chosen the most difficult therapeutic area in pharma which is CNS and it was investing the cash

2/n

flow it used to earn from CRAMS. It also used to write off all the R&D expenses in the P&L instead of capitalizing it in BS. That gave me lot of comfort about management quality.

I kept on adding as funds keep coming. I remember giving a public presentation on Suven in

3/n

Mumbai at one analyst meet in Nov 2017 when it was trading at Rs 160. There was a huge call option embedded at that time in the form of SUVN-502. That would have been the blockbuster molecule if succeeded with market potential of $10 Bn plus..result was due in Dec 2019,

4/n

I loaded around 250-300 knowing the value of CRAMS business itself is more than 300.

SUVN-502 failed in phase-II trials, stock was down 15% from 300 to 250 in a single day, I added heavily. it was largest allocation in my portfolio because I knew the value of CRAMS business

5/n

From @jack:

Starting now, we are changing the way we do things at Twitter. Even though we have been following policies we created, that we thought were good and necessary, it just hasn’t had the desired effect of promoting good discourse. Effective immediately, we are changing.

The basic principle that now guides us is that instead of trying to manipulate discourse, we are opening it up, and making ourselves more transparent and accountable, and resisting attempts at censorship of us or our users.

Further, we have been fundamentally operating under the false premise that we, our our news and fact-checking partners, are smarter or better at understanding information than you, our users, are. This is a vain fiction, and we will drop this pretense.

We have long known that we are not just another social media site, but the place where citizens, governments, and organizations communicate with each other, for essential purposes. We have a great responsibility to the public to be open. So, we change to improve.

First: we will no longer proactively delete any content, except for: private information harming a person other than who posted it (e.g. doxxing, revenge porn, etc.), and any content we are legally required to remove.

@jeffreyatucker In the end, it is all a natural consequence of a very human foible, namely that we all do everything we can to blame anybody or anything else for our problems, if we can get away with it. It's the reason why rulers start wars to squelch domestic dissent - macro and micro the same

The very notion of the germ theory of disease revolves around this and while it is good for selling medical interventions, treatments and pharmaceuticals, it is no good for either personal health, or public health in any way. We need to start looking at health on a holistic level

More of a systems approach to health would get us to see that the whole instinct to stamp out viruses, like the very counter-factual notion of "zero Covid," and other nonsense, are driven by this need to blame somebody or something else for our problems, so we can have our cake

and eat it too, i.e. we can pass the blame to others and go and kill them, be they bugs or other people (lockdowns???). The results are disastrous for health on both a personal and a public level, and we continue on a path of assured self-destruction. But times are changing, now.

Lifestyle Medicine @aclifemed provides the new paradigm, more of a systems approach to health, in which personal responsibility for our habits comes first, starting with nutrition. Immune systems become depressed by fatigue, stress, inner conflict, malnutrition and so on. Change

1) Dreaded thread on why I think the response to postcritique is so vitriolic. Short version: Because literary studies is a discipline in search of an application.

2) Before I go on, I'll say from the outset that many in lit studies explicitly reject the idea that the field *should* have an application. My opinion is that's fine if you want to do book clubs, but if you want an institution you can't ignore that difficult issue. But anyway...

3) The evidence by this point is overwhelming that when lit scholars talk about 'method' we're actually just talking about ourselves: 'ways of reading,' 'how we argue,' 'phenomenology of reading,' etc. etc.

4) David Kurnick nicely illustrates this phenomenon:

5) But none of this is method discussion. Talking about ourselves, how we approach our objects of study, our motives and objectives, our commitments, etc. would be the *beginning* of a method convo in every other discipline. In lit studies it's the *end*, or the whole convo!