Miha Rekar

“The data-driven answer to life is as follows: be with your love, on an 80-degree and sunny day, overlooking a beautiful body of water, having sex.”

This sentence both opens and wraps up the book. But the middle parts explain it very well. And not just that, but many other things that are counter-intuitive or counter-counter-intuitive (I know how this sounds, but it will make sense once you're reading the book). Sometimes we shouldn't go with our gut but instead, look at what data suggests us to do.

I was already a fan of Seth's previous book, Everybody Lies, and while this one takes a similar approach (using data to write a book), it's a very different book. Sort of self-help for data-driven people.

Most self-help books have 2-3 actual bits of advice and take several angles to prove the point, making the book longer than it needs to be. This one, however, I wouldn't mind having more content. I really enjoyed the book, and will probably reread it soon.

Everything we know about wolves, from the viewpoint of science, biology, mythology, fairytales, and personal experience. The book is very well written and offers many details and all aspects of wolves and their relationship with people. In the past couple of years, there's been a change in public opinion about wolves and how not bad they are.

The first time I remember being mindblown about wolves was seeing the TEDx talk by Miha Krofel: Living with wolves. And I can still recommend it as a great starting point. If you enjoy that video, then I can wholeheartedly recommend this book. If not, well, then not.

Productivity junkie rediscovers nihilism. Not a bad book. Not a great one either.

An absolute must-read. I was already a fan of Michael from How to Change Your Mind, but this book highlights his style even more. He goes deep as a research journalist would and then makes a great story out of it.

The chapter about corn was absolutely eye-opening. I had no clue that all these things could be made from corn And not only can they be, but it's now the most cost-efficient way of doing it. That alone broke my mind.

It also makes abundantly clear that labels like “organic” mean almost absolutely nothing. It's a slightly different way of industrial production. But there are practical ways to produce food as they do on Polyface Farm. They raise cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, and even rabbits in harmony with the animals' natural instincts and rotational grazing techniques.

Then there was this:
>A one-pound box of prewashed lettuce contains 80 calories of food energy. Growing, chilling, washing, packaging, and transporting that box of organic salad to a plate on the East Coast takes more than 4,600 calories of fossil fuel energy, or 57 calories of fossil fuel energy for every calorie of food. These figures would be about 4 percent higher if the salad were not grown organically.

Pollan also spends a lot of time thinking about whether we should eat meat or not. While the topic is (and will be for the foreseeable future) controversial, he outlines some great points why we should indeed eat it. But not in the quantities and techniques we mostly do now. CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) must go.

>People who care about animals should be working to ensure that the ones they eat don't suffer, and that their deaths are swift and painless—for animal welfare, in others words, rather than rights.

I'd categorize this book as “slow read” apropos “slow food”. Take your time, and you'll enjoy it more and learn a lot.

I was already a big fan of Michael Schur and his work. Everything from The Office, to Parks and Recreations, but most of all The Good Place. If you enjoyed the philosophy from the latter show, as I did, you'll eat this book up. I can especially recommend the audiobook version since it's narrated by the author and the cast of The Good Place. Yes, that includes Kristen Bell and Ted Danson.

In the book, Michael tries to explain the most important moral philosophies in his view: virtue ethics, deontology, utilitarianism, contractualism, ubuntu, and existentialism. And if your eyes glazed over just now, this book is for you. Because he does it in such an entertaining way that you'll almost forget you're reading about moral philosophy. And that's the highest praise anyone can give.

And don't be deceived by the title. There's a whole chapter on making a case for why “moral perfection” is both impossible to attain and a bad idea to even attempt. This book simply tries to convey ideas by which you could live your life in ways that'll make you a better person. Or, to paraphrase Samuel Beckett: “Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”

So (re)watch The Good Place and then tackle this book. Again, I strongly recommend the audio version.

A detailed look into WeWork and the life of Adam Neumann. The beginnings. the rise, and the epic collapse. Come for the schadenfreude and stay because it's even worse than you think it's going to be.

The book highlights how far a magnificent showman can go with (almost) unlimited VC money support and backing. Adam managed to convince everyone, from poorly paid workers to bankers, that his idea was about really changing the world. In reality, it was not even coworking but plain and boring office sharing.

I generally dislike VC-backed companies overpromising and underdelivering, but Adam and WeWork took it to another level. If you like this sort of reading, you'll enjoy this book. But you won't learn much, other than maybe trusting your gut and never working for people like Adam.

I've been very interested in climate change lately. From How to Avoid a Climate Disaster to The Uninhabitable Earth, Less Is More, and tons of articles and YouTube videos in between.

But Michael takes an entirely different approach. He claims that many environmentalists have Malthusian views. They oppose the extension of cheap energy and agricultural modernization to developing nations by using left-wing and socialist language of redistribution. It wasn't that poor nations needed to develop; it was that rich nations needed to consume less.

“Malthusians raise the alarm about resource or environmental problems and then attack the obvious technical solutions. Malthus had to attack birth control to predict overpopulation. Holdren and Ehrlich had to claim fossil fuels were scarce to oppose the extension of fertilizers and industrial agriculture to poor nations and to raise the alarm over famine. And climate activists today have to attack natural gas and nuclear energy, the main drivers of lower carbon emissions, in order to warn of climate apocalypse.”

I don't remember ever opposing nuclear myself, but my enthusiasm for it grows daily. Nuclear energy is basically zero pollution and has a radically low environmental footprint. What matters most is power density. Solar and wind simply aren't power-dense. You need vast amounts of land to create a comparably low amount of electricity. Not to mention they are extremely weather dependent. And that they don't work at night and very poorly in winter. Battery storage isn't an answer. Especially not for seasonal differences in production. This is why, wherever they built a lot of solar/wind, they also build coal/natural gas plants. And that's why oil giants support renewables and oppose nuclear because it means more oil/gas consumption.

The gist to be pro-nuclear is very clear: the denser the fuel, the less of an impact on the environment. Solar and wind are not dense. Neither is wood. Coal is denser than wood. Oil is denser than coal. Nuclear is FAR denser than anything.

We shouldn't be against solar on top of existing buildings. But cutting down forests to build solar plants is ridiculous. We can't be up in arms against Brazilians cutting down forests for agriculture while not having issues when we do the same but for renewables. Wind plants are not that great since they kill many birds and bats. Not to mention they look ugly.

The path to low emissions is clear: no wood, as little coal as possible (only allow it in the transition period), as little oil as possible, maximize solar/hydro when conditions allow, nuclear for the majority of energy, and natural gas (or hydrogen if we figure out how to produce it efficiently) to cover the spikes.

One thing is clear throughout the books I read on climate change: cheap, reliable, and abundant electricity is a prerequisite for prosperity.

First, the title Cultish should be read as in English, Swedish, not as cult-like. Amanda explores the languages cults use - everything from Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, and Scientology to SoulCycle, Peloton, Amway, and QAnon. If you're into cults or communication, you'll enjoy this book.

What was most profound to me was the term “thought-terminating cliché.” Coined in 1961 by the psychiatrist Robert J. Lifton, this term refers to catchphrases aimed at halting an argument from moving forward by discouraging critical thought. Cultish leaders often call on thought-terminating clichés, also known as semantic stop signs, to hastily dismiss dissent or rationalize flawed reasoning.

Before you think, “I wouldn't fall for that,” ask yourself about the language used in all of the groups you are a part of in your daily life. Mantras, jargon, acronyms, and group-specific phrases, all inspire a sense of intrigue, so potential recruits will want to know more; then, once they're in, it creates camaraderie, such that they start to look down on people who aren't privy to this exclusive code.” Some psychologists call this “loaded language.” It is present far beyond the groups that many would quickly label as a cult.

Other than language, the biggest lure is being a part of a group or filling a need for a sense of belonging. It's also, on some level, a desire to better oneself – spiritually, intellectually, and physically.

So yeah, a fascinating book, and certainly a topic I want to explore more.

Did this book have an editor? Certainly doesn't seem like it. It's not only that it's repetitive, the exact same sentences and conclusions are repeated several times. Narrative (if you can even call it that) is all over the place. Not to even mention all the mentions of “science” without any citations/sources. This book is a first draft at best that needs a lot of work to get it to a polished book.

Which is a shame, because the core of it (Wim Hof Method) is certainly a very interesting thing. Both breathing and cold water plunges/showering. But for that I think you're better off googling for it, or using the app. This book has the method spread throughout the book in several different variations without giving you a definitive/basic version explicitly. It's so badly edited. Or, more likely, it's completely unedited. First draft straight to print. Infuriating.

After being so enthralled by Blueprint For Revolution I wanted to read another book by Srđa. Unfortunately this one is a very short and somehow watered-down version of Blueprint's highlights. It focuses only on dilemma actions: what they are and why they work. Then there's some extra talk about laughtivism, but again, nothing that Blueprint doesn't cover.

The only new datapoint for me was a link to a BBC article which claims that nonviolent protests engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.

So yeah, feel free to skip this one. But do read Blueprint For Revolution. Please.

A book I absolutely devoured. Written really well with great flow, a pinch of Serbian humor, and many Lord of the Rings references. But mainly it's about global activism, protests, and how to successfully form and run a group for a cause. And the role CANVAS (Centre for Applied NonViolent Actions and Strategies) had/has in that. Srdja gives a ton of examples how nonviolent way is always the way, but this one sealed it for me: “There's a real danger to a movement that becomes violent, and it's that violence makes it hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys.”.

Again, a really great book, and if you are at all interested in activism, I can not recommend it enough.

I heard good things about this book from an activism perspective. So I went into it hoping I'll learn something about that. And while there certainly are some good ideas, it's very outdated (internet and social media only mentioned in passing), focusing primarily on pamphlets and showing VCR tapes (yes, really) on a TV and educating people who pass by.

The vast, vast majority of the book is about why we should stop eating animals. And while there's nothing wrong with that, and I agree that in the future we'll look back at this period of factory farming with horror, it is not why I picked up this book or what I hoped to get out of it.

So if you need convincing to go vegetarian/vegan, and/or are interested in spreading that word, give this book a go. It's great. But if you're not in the subsection of that Venn diagram, feel free to skip it.

My mind was already changed to the point where I believed that psychedelics are an incredible class of drugs that we should be exploring much much more. But Michael really takes you by his hand detailing his experience from 0 to convert. From skeptic, to interested person, to convict.

The book is divided into three main sections. The first is a history of research in the (mostly psychiatric) use of psychedelics. The third part is a look at current research into the ways these molecules actually affect the brain. The middle section is Pollan's recounting of some of his experiences using these molecules, though I wouldn't describe this as treating the reader to his high. Rather, he tries to put into words what he experienced, and his point here is how that changed him from an open-minded, atheist skeptic into a even more open-minded revisionist of materialist views of the world. Where once he saw an opposition, as he says, between “spiritual” and “materialist,” he now views the opposition as between spiritual and egotistical. As difficult as it is for members of such a stridently individualist culture to grasp, Pollan now argues that that is the source of some of our most critical health care issues, e.g., addiction and depression.

If you're new to the world of psychedelics or if you're already a believer, this book is for you. I guarantee you'll learn a lot.

A good overview of where Instagram came for, and how Facebook annexed it and starting destroying it from its core. As someone who has been on IG from the very early days I felt the changes and it's interesting to map them to what was happening in the background. In the end it's more a story of Facebook and how it does business than about Instagram, but a good read regardless.

I've returned to this book many times. It was a recommendation from a Couchsurfing guest after we were discussing our cultural differences. It's an amazing insight into how to interpret different people from different cultures and how to successfully communicate across cultures. I only wish I would have known about this book when I was managing teams across continents.

Leaders have always needed to understand human nature and personality differences to be successful in business - that's nothing new. What's new is the requirement for twenty-first century leaders to be prepared to understand a wider, richer array of work styles than ever before and to be able to determine what aspects of an interaction are simply a result of personality and which are a result of differences in cultural perspective.

Get this book even if you're in no managing position nor you wish to be. It'll help you navigate people.

An economist read a couple of philosophy books, deemed himself enlightened, and wrote this book. Throughout the book, he is gerrymandering philosophies, research papers, and statistics to support his world views and truisms. Such a pile of bullshit supporting his claim that growth is good for growth's sake, just because it has been good in the previous centuries. He is hand-waving about Wealth+, which is supposedly an improved GDP metric, taking well-being and the environment into account, but never really defining it clearly.

What he's trying to say the entire book is that we should more or less support and continue the current game of musical chairs. It was good for “the rich,” and because of that, it'll be good for the poor as well when it trickles down in the “long run.” There are so many instances of ridiculous thinking like that, completely dismissing life experiences of anyone but the upper classes.

I'm so angry right now, but I was furious reading this stupid book disagreeing with basically every single sentence. Do NOT recommend.

The Phoenix Project is one of the most interestingly written books in this genre I have ever read. It's not your typical software manager book full of dry advice, but instead follows Bill, who became a VP of IT Operations overnight and inherited a department in disarray. We follow the narrative o Bill through his eyes in a novel form. Not novel like new, but novel like, well, novel. It reads in a very different way, and so it also hits differently. It goes through all the problems you will encounter in IT (and others, I presume) departments throughout your career. Being surrounded by incompetent people, having one person who knows it all and nothing can happen without him, one team blaming the other for problems and vice versa, being over budget, missing the deadline, firefighting issues that pop up constantly,..., and how Bill would tackle them. Then you have a sage in Bob, who dealt with similar problems in a manufacturing environment and gives Bill hints on how the same ideas could work in IT.

The result is DevOps, which now became the de facto standard in the industry, especially in internet-based IT companies. I've never worked in a company where releases would be monthly or where I would need an ops person to do it. But the IT world is massive, and I'm sure many companies still haven't made this leap.

The book reminded me of several instances from my career, and I truly can not recommend it enough.

The book is trying so hard not to offend that it's basically unreadable. And it's extremely US centric to the degree that you feel the authors have never seen the rest of the world. There are so many better factual climate books out there - go read those instead.

The book is completely backwards in many ways but mostly in not recognizing remote work can be a positive, not a detriment.

Stopped reading 10% in.

books #enron #energy #capitalism

Very long and detailed read about one of the greatest business collapse stories at the end of the 20th century. It shows exactly what can happen when the only thing that matters is stock price and you have incredibly smart people who are willing and capable to do anything to play the market. Sad, but real.

Also interesting contrast with the Rockafeller's biography that I recently read. The incentives were there and they played hard against the competition, but at least they had the decency to be honest and play by the market rules which were transparent.

I was always a big fan of Dyson products and this book pretty much solidified my views about the company. They really care about engineerins details and will go against the grain if it means they might create a better product. They believe in family ownership of the company which I could not agree more. I see Dyson's values as a sort of hybrid between Apple and Patagonia.

Though there are many things I disagree with James - mainly patents. He thinks they should be easier to get and longer lasting to increase competitive advantage of companies / patent owners. I think this would increase patent trolls and be a huge net negative. He claims no one would invest time and money into producing things if patents would be less protected. But we only need to look at open source software or Wikipedia to see that is clearly not the case.

He's also a proponent for Brexit since he claims European countries always want to get their own way and since there is so much lobbying going on in EU that ends up hurting Dyson. While I agree that there's way too much lobbying and it being detrimental to EU citizens, it's naïve to believe same thing does and will not happen in UK alone. Also, precisely because UK always wants things their own way, is why we all ended up in this mess.

But all in all it is a good autobiography and I can certainly recommend a read.

A very long and very detailed look into a very complicated person and his family. It was interesting to read how capitalism was being formed and how even the symbol of capitalism himself preferred companies working together rather than leaving things to the “free market”. He believed that the competitive free-for-all eventually gave way to monopoly and that large industrial-planning units were the most sensible way to manage an economy.

What makes it hard to dislike the guy is that he was the foremost philanthropist. Rockefeller accelerated the shift from the personal, ad hoc charity that had traditionally been the province of the rich to something both more powerful and more impersonal. He established the promotion of knowledge, especially scientific knowledge, as a task no less important than giving alms to the poor or building schools, hospitals, and museums. He showed the value of expert opinion, thorough planning, and competent administration in nonprofit work, setting a benchmark for professionalism in the emerging foundation field.

I went into this book with “capitalism is not perfect but it's not that bad compared to communism” mindset. What this book opened my mind to is that this is not a duopoly. Democracy and capitalism do not come hand in hand. And what's at the core of capitalism is continuous growth. Mostly for growths sake. A sort of larpurlartism, if you will. And here is the crux of the situation we find ourselves in these times: growth and ecology simply can not co-exist.

>Whenever there appears to be a conflict between ecology and growth, economists and politicians opt for the latter and try ever more creative ways to get reality to conform to it.

But that doesn't work anymore. We have to ditch GDP as a measure of success and chose ecology/well-being. After a certain point there is no correlation between how good people have it vs how high the GDP is anyway. If anything it's actually reverse: take a look at Portugal and USA for example. We have to pick a metric that adjusts for income inequality as well as the social and environmental costs of economic activity.

>Decoupling of GDP growth from resource use is at best only temporary. Permanent decoupling (absolute or relative) is impossible for essential, non-substitutable resources because the efficiency gains are ultimately governed by physical limits. It is therefore misleading to develop growth-oriented policy around the expectation that decoupling is possible.

>If scarcity is created for the sake of growth, then by reversing artificial scarcities we can render growth unnecessary. By decommodifying public goods, expanding the commons, shortening the working week and reducing inequality, we can enable people to access the goods that they need to live well without requiring additional growth in order to do so. People would be able to work less without any loss to their well-being, thus producing less unnecessary stuff and generating less pressure for unnecessary consumption elsewhere.

TL;DR: We have enough already. We have to find a way to redistribute it so we can all have better and more fulfilling lives. And in the process also save ourselves from growth that's killing us via the actions we make on this planet.

Absolutely amazing book. It's written well, the story is fabulous, it intertwines everything from running, working with animals, living on a farm far from “civilization”, autism, mental health,... to Wim Hof method. Can't wait to read it again, even though I know how the story ends now.

My review of this will resemble that of Antifragile a lot. Seems like I have a love/hate reader relation with Taleb. On some things I absolutely agree, on the others I couldn't disagree more. I think it's a book you should read. But don't go about following it to the letter. Again I found it very funny how he accuses researchers cherry-picking cases to make examples and hand waving things that don't fit the narrative away when he's doing the exact same thing. Everyone he dislikes is an IYI or semi-intellectual. There's no space for gray in his world, only black-and-white. I simply can't endorse that kind of viewpoint.