It is very rare that I disagree with Morgan Housel — I identify with his ideas about well-being, learning, and money. But this time, I have to.

A few days ago, he wrote (my emphasis):

“A book you’re not into after 10 minutes of attention has little chance of a happy ending. Slam it shut and move on. You’re not a failure if you quit a book after three pages.”

According to Housel (I haven't been able to verify the quote), Charlie Munger once said:

“Most books I don’t read past the first chapter. I’m not burdened by bad books.”

Admittedly, Housel is in good company: other very smart intellectuals that I like and follow seem to agree with this strategy. Tyler Cowen said (NB: seventeen years ago):

“I start ten or so books for every one I finish. I don't mind disliking a book, and I never regret having picked it up and started it. I am ruthless in my discards.”

Naval Ravikant says:

“I feel no obligation whatsoever to finish the book. If at some point I decide the book is boring […] I just delete it. […] Don’t feel the obligation to finish any book. Don’t treat it like a linear tome or treatise that has to be read in order and the way the author intended beginning to end.”

Well, I disagree with them all!

Let's talk about one of my favourite things in life (books) and one of my least favourite things in life (contemporary mainstream feminism).

To do any kind of analysis of the world of books we can start by dividing it into three main areas, or groups of people involved: writers, readers, and publishing houses. The first two groups are self-explanatory. The last group comprises all professional activity bridging the gap between the person who writes and the person who reads: publishers, editors, proofreaders, translators, marketers, etc.

What are the sex imbalances in those three areas?

Let's review some facts.

Si Vox es «extrema derecha» porque está la derecha del PP, entonces Sumar y UP son «extrema izquierda» porque están a la izquierda del PSOE.

Si Vox es «ultra» porque está en contra de las autonomías (que son parte de la Constitución), entonces Sumar y UP son «ultras» porque están en contra de la Monarquía y también de «la indisoluble unidad de la Nación española» (que son parte de la Constitución).

Si Vox es «ultra» porque tiene elementos abiertamente nacionalistas y veladamente fascistas, entonces Sumar y UP son «ultras» porque tienen elementos abiertamente comunistas y anticapitalistas y veladamente antisistema.

(Ver mis subrayados en el primer libro y en el tercer libro.)

Todo lo que he resaltado mientras leía el segundo de los tres tomos que componen los Ensayos de Michel de Montaigne, probablemente la obra de no-ficción más importante de la literatura universal.

Ideas que me hicieron sentir reivindicado en alguna convicción mía previa, ideas que me hicieron gracia, ideas que me inspiraron, o ideas que me espantaron.

In this era of advanced technology and AI-powered assistants, it's becoming increasingly important to establish trust and transparency in our digital interactions. That's why I'm excited to share a brand new proposal that aims to revolutionize the way we identify and acknowledge the origin of online content. Say hello to "AI-tiquette" or "AItiquette"! 🌟

The concept is simple yet powerful: every piece of content shared online will end with either "/human" or "/robot" to indicate whether it was created by a person or an AI-powered assistant. By implementing this small but significant addition, we can enhance transparency, foster trust, and embrace a new standard of digital etiquette.

On the back of the bet on the future relative prices of Bitcoin and US dollars that Balaji and Medlock settled publicly on 2023-05-02 (confirmation by Balaji; confirmation by Medlock),

today Fidel Ramos and I agree on the following terms of a bet:

For at least seven years now I have tweeted, tooted and posted at length, both in English and in Spanish, about the failures of contemporary orthodox feminism. I still consider myself a feminist, as per the sensible and constructive definitions of the word (equality under the law, equality of opportunity, opposition to sexism, respect for individual choice). But I keep on seeing so many inconsistencies, anti-scientific ideas, petty grievances, misandry, and hatred on mainstream feminism, and its focus is misplaced so often, that sometimes I have to repudiate the label and write against that hegemonic strand of feminism.

In the last decade or so, discussing differences in aggregate outcomes per sex has become especially problematic. I see two main pitfalls there.

First, the eternal tension between nature and nurture, and the corresponding open debates. That makes it very difficult to tell to what degree gaps between the sexes are due to innate differences or to upbringing and cultural norms and expectations. (Are there way more men in prison than women because men are naturally more inclined towards crime and anti-social behaviour, or because culture teaches men and women to behave differently and punishes them differently?)

Second, it is not always obvious for everybody what is a “good” outcome or a “preferable” outcome in the first place. (Is the fact that men work longer hours than women on average an advantage of being male because it means they earn more money and get more meaning and prestige from their jobs, or are women better off because work is work after all and it's better to avoid stress and night shifts and have more time and energy for other aspects of life?)

“I grudgingly forgive capitalism the misery it causes, because it’s the engine that lifts countries out of poverty. It’s a precondition for a free and prosperous society; attempts to overthrow it have so consistently led to poverty, tyranny, or genocide that we no longer believe its proponents’ earnest oaths that this time they’ve got it right. For right now, there’s no good alternative.”

— Scott Alexander

“I'm waiting for someone to, first, describe a better system than capitalism, and second, set out a realistic path for getting from here to there. When that happens, it will be worth thinking harder about the ethical flaws in capitalism. Until then, […] there is a huge amount we can all do, within the current economic system, to make the world a much better place.”

— Peter Singer

I noticed that I stumble upon “anti-capitalism” surprisingly often in day-to-day life.

I hear or read ideas against capitalism on mass media, on podcasts and on blog posts; by politicians, artists and punters. Not just criticism of, or suggestions to improve, capitalism — but outright calls to end capitalism.

Sometimes it's implicit in the message, or thinly veiled in some other way. Think all those platitudes about “creating a new system”, “putting people before profits”, “getting rid of money”, and so on.

But more often than not, it's an explicit, frontal attack on capitalism. Until 2020, one of the main organisations conforming the political party Podemos in Spain was Anticapitalistas. Also in Spain, the manifestos proclaimed by mainstream feminist organisations for the occasion of International Women's Day, year after year, paint a huge bullseye on the back of the capitalist system (“…the macabre bond between patriarchy and capitalism that wants us to be obedient, submissive and silent…”). I have acquaintances who claim to be against capitalism, puzzling as I always found that aspiration.

[31 Oct – 6 Nov; unfinished draft that I published months later]

Indignant toot of the week:

[24–30 Oct; unfinished draft that I published months later]

Toot of the week: