Posts

When examining human behavior, you can usually answer the “why?” behind most phenomena by analyzing incentives. This principle applies universally—from economics to politics, where elected officials often prioritize certain interests over broader constituent needs. There’s a reason the phrase “follow the money” has become ubiquitous. Many people skip the step of examining incentive structures, then express confusion when others act in ways that seem counterintuitive. Yet once you look at the underlying incentives, motivations typically become clear. Most of the dysfunction we see in modern capitalism can be traced to poorly designed incentive systems.

I’m learning to get better at being bored. There have been times when I actively avoided boredom, in particular in my childhood I thought of boredom as a bad thing. I still tend to fill free time with “activities” more than I should. My go-to boredom fillers include reading, writing, taking walks, watching TV or movies (as much as I hate to admit it), and occasionally a video game (which, unlike TV, requires some degree of active participation).

In the Linux kernel project, Linus Torvalds has made over 70,000 commits since 19911. That’s an average of over 2,000 commits per year, or about 6 commits per day, every day, for 30 years. Meanwhile, the average contributor makes fewer than 10 commits total. This isn’t an anomaly—it’s a pattern we see across the entire software industry.

I’ve never liked the word “invention”; instead, I prefer the term discovery. Nobody has ever truly invented anything—rather, we come upon discoveries, and some people are fortunate enough to figure out how to monetize them. Every time I think I’ve had a brilliant, original insight, a quick internet search reveals dozens of people who’ve already explored the same concept, often more thoroughly than I have. It’s a humbling experience that repeats itself with remarkable consistency.

We often must judge others, such as when hiring, choosing who to work with, or selecting friends and partners. I find that there are two attributes most desirable in people I associate with: authenticity and intelligence. There are two simple heuristics for detecting inauthentic people and genuinely smart ones, which I’ll outline below.

The most challenging relationships I’ve experienced, both personal and professional, have involved highly neurotic individuals. By neuroticism, I mean a tendency toward emotional instability—characterized by inconsistency, excessive anxiety, disproportionate reactions to minor issues, and sometimes aggressive responses to everyday stressors. Understanding Neuroticism # Neuroticism exists on a spectrum. A moderate level of concern about potential problems can be productive—it helps us prepare and plan. But when these feelings become overwhelming or trigger reactions that damage relationships, they cross into problematic territory.

Survivorship bias often gets discussed as a cautionary tale. For example, someone might point out a person’s or company’s success, and another will retort with, “But that’s just survivorship bias!” What’s rarely discussed is how to internalize survivorship bias in an actionable way. If you know that most success stories (whether in business, investing, dating, or even the actual lottery) are primarily the result of luck rather than skill, how can you use this information to your advantage?

In Daniel Kahneman’s influential book Thinking, Fast and Slow, he presents a compelling model of how our minds work: we have two distinct systems for thinking. System 1 operates automatically, quickly, with little effort and no sense of voluntary control. System 2 allocates attention to effortful mental activities, including complex computations and deliberate choice-making.

Software engineers tend to be smart people. Writing software is hard, and it’s entirely a discipline of exercising your brain cells to write the correct commands to make the computer do what you want it to do. Add in the layers of complexity that come with dealing with humans who want software to do something without necessarily knowing or understanding precisely what they want, and what you end up with is a fairly complicated practice.

Tools are often cited as an example of what separates humans from most other animals. And while it’s true that other animals also use tools, humans are a bit unique in that we’ve also developed tools that make tools. My dogs (I have two, Doge and Walter) occasionally utilize tools, but due to their lack of opposable thumbs their tool usage is quite limited. My dogs’ use of tools tends to be limited to acts which involve food or play.