Summary of “Here’s The Technique That Ambitious People Use To Get What They Want – RyanHoliday.net”

I think another part of this is that we are often afraid of putting ourselves out there and being rejected, so we think, “Well, I’ll just go and see what happens, but I won’t really try. I’ll wait until they hire me.” None of this is conscious of course.
Thiel is a man who is notoriously averse to what a friend would deem “Casual bar talk.” He’s a critical thinker, a certified genius and a wily contrarian.
Everyone else Peter had talked to had been thinking incremental, they had been defeatists and Thiel had almost come to internalize their view.
The question those questions then provoke is this: What opportunities have we left on the table in our own lives by failing to do the same? I can think of an easy one off the top of my head. In college, I interviewed at a powerhouse music PR firm.
Preparing for the interview, by actually putting something together to say in the room? I don’t think the thought even occurred to me.
More ruefully, I also think about how many dinners I’ve been to over the years with powerful and important people.
I think about the incredible people whose company I have been lucky enough to be in.
They said, “I want to work for you for free.” Or “I would like for you to be my mentor.” They rarely say what the person thinks they can do, or where they think my needs overlap with their skills.

The orginal article.

Summary of “This Blueberry Pan Sauce is Good on Any Meat”

Usually, when I think of blueberries, I think of muffins, pie, and Blueberry Morning-a cereal I was obsessed with from ages nine through 12.
These are all good things, but I urge you to reconsider the blueberry, and smother steaks, chops, and wild game with this juicy, surprisingly balanced pan sauce.
A pan in which you have just seared some meat.1 cup of blueberries.
Once you’ve seared whatever meat you wish to consume, set it on a plate and let it rest.
If the pan is really greasy, you can pour some of the fat off, but I never pour any fat off ever.
Toss the blueberries in the pan, pour in the stock, and drizzle a little bit of honey over the berries.
Let everything simmer until the skins burst and the sauce is a dark, deep purple.
If the sauce isn’t as thick as you’d like it, return it to the pan for a bit with a pat of butter.

The orginal article.

Summary of “What It Takes to Think Deeply About Complex Problems”

The problems we’re facing often seem as complex as they do intractable.
As Albert Einstein is often quoted as saying, “We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.” So what does it take to increase the complexity of our thinking?
Rather than certainty, modern leaders need to consciously cultivate the capacity to see more ­- to deepen, widen, and lengthen their perspectives.
Widening means taking into account more perspectives ­- and stakeholders – in order to address any given problem from multiple vantage points.
Early in childhood, we begin to develop an internal narrative about how the world works and what we think is true.
Think for a moment about one of your primary strengths.
Relentless demands and the pressure to respond rapidly undermine more complex thinking.
Scheduling this practice is a way of ensuring that I give complex issues time and attention that might otherwise be consumed by more urgent but less intellectually demanding and value-adding priorities.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Think you’re special? That just proves you’re normal”

Among the creepier experiences of modern life is one that happens to me, though definitely not just me, on a regular basis: I’ll meet a friend for a drink, he’ll recommend some book or film or product he thinks I’ll like, and then, within days – without searching for it online – I’ll start seeing targeted web ads for it.
There’s another reason Big Tech knows us so much better than we think, which is that each of us is far more normal than we realise.
All that’s really just a distraction from the brute statistical fact: on any given dimension, all else being equal, of course you’re probably normal.
Shorn of any value judgment, that’s all the word “Normal” means.
Your intelligence, your creativity, your tastes in culture or romantic partners, the degree to which the world has mistreated you: the chances are they’re much less quirky or extreme than you think, especially since we’ve each got strong ulterior motives to believe otherwise.
Or to put it another way: thinking you’re special is just one more way in which you’re normal.
This is the famous Lake Wobegon phenomenon known as “Illusory superiority”, which explains why most people think they’re above average at driving, at being unbiased, and various other things.
The trouble is that both the positive and negative forms of thinking you’re less normal than you are lead to misery – either by convincing you you’re unusually bad, or by turning life into an isolating, adversarial exercise in maintaining your sense of being unusually good.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Exclusive: How Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella is rethinking Windows”

“We are the Windows company, after all,” Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella told me.
Was Microsoft really preparing itself for a world without Windows? Nadella was ready to tell me that Windows isn’t going away – of course Windows isn’t going away – but he also wanted to explain his latest buzzwordy vision for the future of the Microsoft: AI, Intelligent Cloud, and Intelligent Edge.
Windows might still be here, but after talking to Nadella, I did get the sense that Windows is no longer as central to the company’s future plans as it once was.
Instead of trying to make everything run on Windows, Nadella wants to ensure that everything can work with Windows.
Of course, openness has its limits: Microsoft is still aggressively pushing users toward its Cortana assistant and Edge browser in Windows.
In both cases, the idea is that Microsoft thinks its customers will be better off if they happen to have Windows around to augment the gear they’re already using.
You just did a reorganization of Windows, and your memo did a really good job of explaining it from a Microsoft insider context.
It might even be a reasonable thing to ask: What is Windows? What is Windows in a year or two? Is it still how I think of it?

The orginal article.

Summary of “Learning Is a Learned Behavior. Here’s How to Get Better at It.”

That’s why many people tend to approach the topic of learning without much focus.
Here’s one example of a study that shows how learning strategies can be more important than raw smarts when it comes to gaining expertise.
Marcel Veenman has found that people who closely track their thinking will outscore others who have sky-high IQ levels when it comes to learning something new.
Here are three practical ways to build your learning skills, based on research.
Studies consistently show that people with clear goals outperform people with vague aspirations like “Do a good job.” By setting targets, people can manage their feelings more easily and achieve progress with their learning.
It turns out that we need to let go of our learning in order to understand our learning.
The good news from all of this – for individuals and for companies looking to help their employees be their best – is that learning is a learned behavior.
By deliberately organizing your learning goals, thinking about your thinking, and reflecting on your learning at opportune times, you can become a better study, too.

The orginal article.

Summary of “If you grow a brain in a lab, will it have a mind of its own?”

The prospect of a lab-grown brain is so compelling that the authors of an editorial in Nature published this week wrote that “The promise of brain surrogates is such that abandoning them seems itself unethical, given the vast amount of human suffering caused by neurological and psychiatric disorders, and given that most therapies for these diseases developed in animal models fail to work in people.”
Given how tantalizing-and genuinely beneficial-the promise of lab-grown brains is, they write that we can almost be certain that we will, at some point, grow a whole brain.
We’re far from that point-all we can do now is grow clumps of brain cells-but now is the time to consider the ethics.
The editorial itself raises a number of hugely important issues-how would you dispose of a living bit of brain? Who has ownership of the brain bits if the cells come from a donor?-but non-neurologists tend to leap to one big question in particular: when would we consider a brain to be its own person?
Scientists can create what are known as brain organoids, which are essentially clumps of brain cells.
Scientists haven’t figured out a way to get all those different groups to grow together in something resembling a real brain.
James Bernat, a professor of neurology and medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, says “I do not think scientists will ever develop a lab-grown brain organoid that would have enough neurological function to be considered a person.” Though he also noted that “Whether brain organoids of the future will ever develop neurological functions is highly questionable.”
“In our lifetimes, I do not think we will need to consider the question of when a lab-grown brain organoid is conscious,” he says, “Because I don’t think we will understand how the brain generates consciousness for the foreseeable future. Measuring it represents another challenge that might be possible if we can ever fully understand its precise biological mechanism.”

The orginal article.

Summary of “The Rise Of The Omnibots”

The first time was while working for another, very different brand.
Many brands I’m working with have some kind of broadly chatbot-ish project under construction.
There is a lot to think about, much of it entirely new ground for brands.
There are two giant omnibots stalking the earth right now.
Some of the most disruptive companies have already started the soup to nuts conversational approach of omnibots.
The march of the omnibots has started, and your company needs one.
Suddenly Black Mirror contains more guidance than brand TOV guidelines.
In the near future, there could be a profusion of omnibots.

The orginal article.

Summary of “‘Avengers: Infinity War’: It’s Marvel’s Universe. We Just Live in It.”

Considered on its own, as a single, nearly 2-hour-40-minute movie, “Avengers: Infinity War” makes very little sense, apart from the near convergence of its title and its running time.
Early on, someone menacingly says, “You may think this is suffering. No: It’s salvation.” That’s a bit overstated either way.
Directed by Joe and Anthony Russo, scrappy fraternal climbers up the 21st-century Hollywood ladder, “Infinity War” is a chunk of matter in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a vast entity that long ago expanded beyond the usual boundaries of sequelization and brand extension.
You can’t really be for or against Marvel, and you can’t quite opt out of it either.
Those interesting, unusual specimens – what we used to think of, in simpler times, as “Good movies” – aren’t exactly accidents.
Who wants to be a hater? Still, it’s worth noting that the ascendance of Marvel has narrowed the parameters of criticism.
I’m supposed to tell you, in this review, how much fun you’ll have at “Infinity War.” But I’ve probably already gone too far in trying to think about what it means.
The Marvel movies and others of their kind often produce an illusion of profundity, a slick, murky overlay of allegorical suggestiveness.

The orginal article.

Summary of “The compelling rage of David Feinberg”

The only part of the documentary I actually remembered the next day was an excerpted clip of a speech delivered at an ACT UP meeting from 1994, in which the writer David Feinberg excoriated a room full of people suffering from AIDs.
At the beginning of the clip, which takes up just over a minute of screen time, Feinberg – 37 years old, and two weeks away from death – takes a snapshot of the room with a disposable camera.
In the documentary, this clip is followed with the text, “By December 1993, AIDS had killed more than 234,000 people in the U.S.” Including, of course, David Feinberg.
It’s like Nora Ephron if she were a significantly less wealthy gay man, and if every other character was dying from AIDS. After a while, Feinberg became a sort of rage-specter, floating just behind my shoulder for the duration of a hot and suffocating fall.
About a month later, I encountered Feinberg again; this time in Sarah Schulman’s 2012 book The Gentrification of the Mind, a memoir and critical text about New York in the 1980s, the history of LGBTQ rights movements, and AIDS. Here, Feinberg is introduced as “The guy who was so creepy to his friends that when he died they were all mad at him and never got over it.” Schulman’s passage on Feinberg argues that his relentless cynicism was a form of blindness, a way of allowing himself to feel angry about his diagnosis while ignoring those around him.
Schulman writes about Feinberg in the context of the many, many people wiped from history by AIDS, people who, because they did not have traditional families and networks, were more transient by nature.
I’ll never know how much of Feinberg’s rage was arch, how much was art, and how much was just the result of an obstinate and unpleasant personality.
I think about the way the clip of Feinberg’s ACT UP is used to demonstrate the stakes of ACT UP’s work – to justify Kramer’s obstinacy and willingness to piss people off, and remember that David Feinberg died anyway.

The orginal article.