Writing is my artistic expression. My keyboard is my brush. Words are my medium. My blog is my canvas. And committing to writing daily makes me feel like an artist.
Twitter was my social media tool of choice for almost 18 years. It paved the path to amazing learning opportunities, and opened my eyes to the possibilities of being a connected educator. I even wrote a book to help teachers (or any learners) get started on it.
However, it has become a place where I only see extremist views, and sensationalized or exaggerated posts. I no longer see a community, I see a train wreck.
I actually mourn the loss, but I cannot stay any longer. I’ll leave my account open, because I refer to countless prior tweets on my blog and elsewhere. But the tweet where I share this post will be my last tweet.
What I won’t be doing is sharing on Twitter/X. I don’t want to participate in the Twittersphere any longer. It does not represent what it used to for me, and I’m out… I’m eXiting Twitter.
I’ve worked in the same building for 12 plus years. We have a pizza place that’s a 5 minute walk away that I have gone to for a slice or two of pizza more times than I’d like to admit. The two brothers that own the place are salt of the earth kind of guys.
Yesterday a great kid from my school was there when I was picking up a slice, and I teased him a bit telling one of the brothers to watch out for this one, ‘He’s a troublemaker’. The kid got a little more embarrassed than I thought he would, and so I let him know that the pizza guy and I have known each other since he was in diapers. Ok, maybe that just added to the embarrassment, and might not have been the right approach, but the point was, I knew this guy well enough that we were both in on the joke.
I just love walking into the store and connecting with these guys. We are well past the usual customer relationship and I’d call them friends. We chat about our families, our jobs, and holiday plans… And we have a fun banter, especially when my students are there. Although, that’s rare because I’m usually popping in just before or after our student lunchtime.
Still, what I enjoy is that the pizza place is a family run business that is a an important part of our community. In an era of big box stores and fast food chains, it’s nice to have, and to support, small family run businesses. They enrich our communities and our lives.
Sometimes I have to laugh because I feel like I’m living in an absurd simulation. This can’t be real life. I’m going to say 4 words and anyone who reads this, and knows the date I wrote it, will know who I’m talking about. Everyone:
He is an idiot.
When else in history could I say those 4 words, and only those 4 words, and literally everyone will understand who I’m talking about?
If it’s true that there are multiple timelines in the universe then I’m convinced that our timeline is the most satirical and ridiculous, and the brunt of many jokes among the other timelines. It brings me a bit of joy to think that somewhere out there in the multiverse there is a timeline where if I said, ‘He’s an idiot,’ people wouldn’t know who I was talking about… but that’s not the reality we live in. It’s embarrassing, but he’s such an idiot, he isn’t embarrassed, it’s just the rest of (intelligent) humanity.
A few months back I started doing my meditation on my treadmill. It started because I was in a writing slump and my blog post writing was taking too long to write… Not leaving me enough time to do 20-30 minutes of cardio, meditate, and do a full weights workout on one body part before work. So I started to double dip and do my meditation on my treadmill. (Yes, I close my eyes, I hold the handrail and also wear the emergency stop clip… not that I’ve ever needed it.)
I actually find this a great combination. I do a walk with a weighted vest on incline, so holding the rail I’m very stable. I get a really good (Zone 2) workout, it’s not like I’m taking it easy. And I find that with my body busy, I’m better able to focus my mind on the guided meditation. And the bonus is that I’m getting two great things done.
Today I was struggling to write, very distracted, and decided to exercise first. I thought I’d double dip and write while on the exercise bike rather than treadmill, where writing would be awkward. 15 minutes into a 30 minute ride, I realized I wasn’t going to write anything while riding so I put on a 15 minute meditation to get me to the end of my cardio workout.
Five minutes later this post came to mind and I spent the next 10 minutes of my meditation and ride bringing my thoughts back to the meditation and away from writing this in my head. Essentially I made the meditation almost impossible to focus on.
This is the first time in a couple years that I’ve tried to meditate before writing, and I totally remember now why I do them in the order I do them. I can’t meditate knowing that I still have to write. I need the sense of accomplishment of my post to help clear my mind for meditation.
Essentially, I can only double dip in the right order, with a physical and a mental activity, but there is no triple dipping! Nor is there double dipping of two mental activities. I’m the poster boy of ‘there’s no such thing as multitasking’. For me meditation while I’ve got a blog post to write is an invitation to completely ignore meditation, or to inconveniently and ineffectively task swap so that I do neither task well.
Write first, then double dip exercise and meditation. That’s my lesson for the morning.
I’ve been noticing a few improvements in my workouts recently. Last week I benched a weight that I haven’t done since my late 20’’s… half a lifetime ago. I’m doing a push-up challenge with my buddy but keep forgetting to do them, so the days I do end up needing to catch up I have to do a lot more push-ups to reach my goal. I can do sets of 30 now as easily as I used to do sets up 20. I’ve added 8 pounds to my weighted vest that I wear on my treadmill to walk on an incline. And my leg workouts I do now would have left me painfully sore for days! (That said I still feel the pain two days later, leg soreness after workouts is something I’ll never fully escape.)
My point is that I can’t pinpoint a time when this progress happened. It’s not like I woke up one day and added 50 more pounds on the bench press bar. Instead, I’ve been making slow and steady progress. I don’t spend hours in the gym, I just commit to cardio and working one muscle group, often for just 3 sets, sometimes two different exercises for 3 sets… if I can write fast enough in the morning to give me that time.
So, I haven’t really added to my workouts significantly at any point. I’ve had no big jumps in progress. I’ve had plateaus, and times when it seems that I’m just in maintenance mode, but recently the tiny improvements have accumulated and I’m noticing the difference. This has been a really positive aspect of my life in the last few years, something that keeps me in a positive frame of mind. It certainly helps to see my own progress, as slow and incremental as it has been.
I subscribe to superhuman.ai, a daily email newsletter. Most days I peruse it for about 3-5 minutes before work, primarily focussing on the ‘Today in AI’ section. It’s fascinating to see how the field of AI is rapidly advancing. On weekends the email shifts topics. Saturday is a robotics special and Sundays are focused on scientific and technological breakthroughs outside of AI.
Here are some videos shared in yesterday’s Superhuman robotics focused update:
Then here are 3 sections from today’s email. Two related to technological advances:
Star Power: France just took a massive lead in the race to near-limitless clean energy. The country’s CEA WEST Tokamak reactor has shattered China’s record, maintaining a hydrogen plasma reaction for 22 minutes and 17 seconds flat. While it’s not commercial-ready yet, it’s a major leap in fusion research and has huge implications for the development of ITER, the world’s largest fusion project, in the south of France.
Two-way Street: Chinese researchers have built the world’s first two-way brain-computer interface (BCI). Unlike conventional BCIs that just decode brain signals, this system creates a feedback loop where both the brain and the machine learn from each other and improve at working together over time.
And 3 related to health and longevity:
Cancer Counter: Scientists at Memorial Sloan Kettering have reported promising results from a small trial that used personalized mRNA vaccines to fight pancreatic cancer. Out of the 16 participants who were administered the vaccine, at least half generated long-lasting cancer-fighting T cells, with early results suggesting fewer recurrences. Researchers estimate these T cells could persist for years, offering hope for a future breakthrough.
Fountain of Youth: Japanese bioengineers claim to have found the ‘rewind’ button for aging. Noticing that older cells were considerably larger in size than younger ones, the scientists discovered that they were packed in a layer of the AP2A1 protein. This led them to conclude that blocking the protein could reverse aging — a potential breakthrough for anti-aging treatments. We’ll believe it when we see it.
Follicle Fix: Research teams around the worldare possibly getting closer to reversing hair loss with a host of innovative new treatments. They’re currently testing a sugar-based gel that could stimulate blood supply to hair follicles, potentially offering a simple, affordable cure for baldness. Also, a new topical gel, PP405, aims to “wake up” dormant hair follicle stem cells, while exosome-based therapies show promise in regrowing hair naturally.
Two years ago, I would have said we were 15-20 years away from intelligent robots living among us, now I think wealthy people will have these in the houses before the end of the year, and they will become even more affordable and mainstream before the end of 2026.
Two years ago I actually believed and shared that my kids would be the first generation to routinely live past 100 years old, barring accidents and rare diagnoses that haven’t yet been cured. Now I can actually conceive of this being true for my generation.
I thought Universal Basic Income was going to be a thing in the 2040’s or 2050’s… Now I look at how intelligent LLM’s are, and how advance robots are, and I wonder how we’ll make it through the 2020’s without needing to financially support both white collar and blue collar workers who are pushed out of jobs by AI and robots.
The speed of innovation is accelerating and right now we are just scratching the surface of AI inspired innovation. What happens when an AI with the equivalent knowledge of 100,000 plus of our most intelligent humans starts to make intuitive connections between entire bodies of knowledge from science, technology, politics, economics, culture, nature, and even art?
In 1985 the movie Back to the Future took us forward to 2015 where there were hovering skate boards. In 40 years rather than 30 we haven’t gotten there yet. But look at the progress in robotics from 2015-2025. This is going to advance exponentially from 2025 to 2030.
If the Back to the Future movie were made today, and the future Marty McFly went to was 2055, I bet the advancements of our imagination would be underwhelming compared to what would actually be possible. While I don’t think we will be there yet with space travel and things like a Mars space station, I think the innovations here on earth will far exceed what we can think of right now.
Grok 3 (beta) is now free. It’s supposed to be the smartest LLM out there so I asked it:
What’s the best way forward for peace in the Ukraine?
Here is Grok’s response:
The best way forward for peace in Ukraine is a complex and debated question, with no single solution universally agreed upon. However, based on current dynamics and informed perspectives, a sustainable peace likely hinges on a combination of military strength, diplomatic negotiation, and long-term security guarantees for Ukraine, while addressing Russia’s actions and the broader geopolitical context as of February 21, 2025.
One widely supported approach is empowering Ukraine to negotiate from a position of strength. This means continued and enhanced military support from Western allies—more weapons, resources, and training—to shift the battlefield balance and deter further Russian escalation. The idea is that Russia, under Vladimir Putin, responds primarily to force rather than goodwill. If Ukraine can impose significant costs on Russia, it might compel Moscow to consider a ceasefire or settlement that doesn’t equate to Ukraine’s capitulation. For instance, Ukraine’s recent Kursk offensive and drone strikes on Russian infrastructure demonstrate how a stronger Ukrainian position can alter the conflict’s trajectory, potentially bringing Russia to the table.
Diplomacy remains critical, but it must be realistic. Ukraine’s leadership, including President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has emphasized that any peace deal requires credible security guarantees to prevent future Russian aggression—ideally NATO membership, though this faces resistance from key members like the U.S. and Germany. Alternatives like bilateral security pacts with firm commitments (e.g., from the U.S.) or a multinational peacekeeping force could serve as stopgaps, though their effectiveness is questioned without long-term enforcement mechanisms. Negotiations should start with achievable steps—local ceasefires, prisoner exchanges, or securing food exports—building momentum toward broader territorial and sovereignty discussions, rather than aiming for an immediate grand bargain that risks collapsing under maximalist demands from either side.
Russia’s stance complicates this. Putin’s terms—Ukraine ceding occupied territories, abandoning NATO aspirations, and demilitarizing—amount to surrender, not peace, and are designed to leave Ukraine vulnerable to future attacks. Historical precedents like the Minsk agreements show that ceasefires without enforcement often fail. Thus, peace must avoid rewarding aggression or compromising Ukraine’s sovereignty, a principle echoed by many Western leaders and analysts who argue that a weak deal would embolden authoritarian powers globally.
The human cost—thousands dead, millions displaced, and ongoing rights violations—underscores urgency, but rushing to a flawed agreement could prolong instability. A just peace likely requires Russia’s withdrawal to pre-2022 lines (or at least pre-2014 borders, including Crimea, though this is less feasible short-term), coupled with Ukraine’s integration into Western security structures over time. This balances immediate de-escalation with deterrence against future threats.
In short, the best path forward combines arming Ukraine to hold its ground, pursuing phased diplomacy with clear red lines, and securing enforceable guarantees—acknowledging that peace without strength risks being temporary, while strength without talks prolongs suffering. The war’s end remains uncertain, but Ukraine’s resilience and Western resolve will shape its terms.
Then I asked:
Is this Trump’s approach?
Grok responded:
You’re asking whether the approach I outlined for peace in Ukraine aligns with Donald Trump’s strategy, given the context of the ongoing war and his recent actions as of February 21, 2025. Based on available information and Trump’s public statements, I can assess how my previous response compares to what’s known about his approach, without reproducing or altering my prior answer.
Trump’s stated intentions for Ukraine, since his inauguration on January 20, 2025, emphasize a rapid end to the conflict through negotiations, often framed as a signature achievement of his presidency. He’s claimed he could resolve the war “in 24 hours” during his campaign and has since initiated direct talks with Vladimir Putin, starting with a notable call on February 12, 2025, followed by outreach to Volodymyr Zelenskyy. His team, including figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, has been tasked with launching peace talks, with reports of planned meetings in Saudi Arabia as early as mid-February 2025. This aligns with a push for immediate diplomacy, consistent with my suggestion of phased negotiations starting with achievable steps like ceasefires.
However, Trump’s approach diverges in key ways from the broader strategy I described. My response emphasized empowering Ukraine militarily to negotiate from strength, with sustained Western support and security guarantees like NATO membership or robust bilateral pacts—aiming for a peace that deters future Russian aggression. Trump, conversely, has signaled concessions that lean toward Russia’s demands. His Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has publicly dismissed Ukraine reclaiming all pre-2014 territories (including Crimea) as “unrealistic” and ruled out NATO membership as part of any deal, suggesting a freeze along current lines instead. Reports of a leaked “100-day plan” from Ukrainian outlet strana.today indicate Trump might push Ukraine to cede occupied territories, withdraw from Russia’s Kursk region, and accept neutrality—terms that echo Putin’s preconditions rather than a bolstered Ukrainian position.
Trump’s rhetoric also hints at economic leverage over military buildup. He’s threatened Russia with tariffs and sanctions to force a deal, while suggesting Ukraine compensate the U.S. with natural resources for past aid—ideas absent from my outline, which focused on deterrence through strength. His February 19, 2025, BBC interview, where he said Russia “has the cards” due to territorial gains, suggests a willingness to accept a settlement favoring Moscow’s current position, contrasting with my call for Russia’s withdrawal to pre-2022 or pre-2014 lines.
On diplomacy, Trump’s unilateral outreach to Putin—often sidelining European allies and initially excluding Ukraine—clashes with my emphasis on inclusive, phased talks with firm red lines. European leaders and Zelenskyy have protested this, insisting on Ukraine’s central role, though Trump later clarified Kyiv would be involved. Still, his approach seems more deal-driven than principle-driven, prioritizing speed over the long-term stability I highlighted.
So, is this Trump’s approach? Not entirely. While we share a focus on negotiation as a path forward, his emerging strategy tilts toward quicker, Russia-friendly concessions—freezing lines, dropping NATO aspirations, and limiting U.S. military commitment—whereas I advocated for a stronger Ukraine backed by sustained Western resolve to ensure a durable peace. Trump’s moves reflect his dealmaking persona, but they risk a temporary truce over the lasting resolution I described. The details of his plan are still fluid, with talks ongoing, but current signals suggest a narrower, more pragmatic scope than the comprehensive framework I proposed.
Then finally I requested:
Outline 3 key points of advice you would give Trump to improve his strategy, briefly outlining pitfalls in his approach and why your advice is worth following.
Grok responded:
Here’s tailored advice for Donald Trump to refine his Ukraine peace strategy, based on the gaps between his emerging approach and a framework for sustainable peace as of February 21, 2025. Each point addresses a pitfall in his current trajectory and explains why the tweak could yield a stronger outcome.
Bolster Ukraine’s Leverage Before Talks, Don’t Rush a Weak Deal Pitfall: Trump’s push for a quick resolution—freezing lines and conceding territory—risks locking in Russian gains, signaling that aggression pays off. His February 19, 2025, BBC comment that Russia “has the cards” underestimates Ukraine’s resilience and hands Putin a propaganda win without forcing real compromise. Advice: Ramp up military aid—drones, long-range missiles, air defenses—for three to six months before finalizing talks. This strengthens Ukraine’s hand (e.g., replicating the Kursk surprise) and pressures Russia into a fairer bargain, avoiding a Minsk-style flop that unravels fast. Why It’s Worth It: A deal from strength deters future invasions and burnishes Trump’s image as a tough negotiator, not a capitulator—key for his legacy and global credibility.
Secure Enforceable Guarantees, Not Just a Handshake Pitfall: Trump’s plan, as leaked via strana.today, leans on neutrality and troop pullbacks without ironclad security for Ukraine. Excluding NATO or firm U.S. commitments leaves Kyiv exposed—Putin’s violated every post-1991 agreement (Budapest Memorandum, Minsk) when it suited him. Advice: Push for a binding multilateral pact—think U.S.-UK-France troop rotations in Ukraine or automatic sanctions triggers if Russia reattacks. Pair it with economic carrots for Moscow (e.g., phased tariff relief) tied to compliance. Why It’s Worth It: This balances Trump’s dealmaking flair with durability, preventing a repeat war that could tank his “peace in 24 hours” brag and drag the U.S. back in later.
Loop in Allies Fully, Don’t Go Lone Wolf Pitfall: Sidelining Europe and initially Ukraine (e.g., his solo Putin call on February 12) alienates partners who’ve bankrolled much of the war effort—$100 billion-plus from the EU versus U.S. aid. It risks fracturing NATO unity and leaving Trump isolated if talks falter. Advice: Host a broader summit—Saudi Arabia works—where Zelenskyy, NATO leaders, and Putin’s team hash it out together. Let allies co-own the process, sharing costs and credit. Why It’s Worth It: Unity amplifies pressure on Russia and spreads responsibility. Trump still gets the spotlight as the deal’s architect, but with less blowback if Putin balks—smart politics and strategy.
These tweaks elevate Trump’s approach from a rushed fix to a robust win, aligning his instincts with the war’s brutal realities. They’d give him a shot at a historic triumph that lasts, not just a photo-op that fades.
Grok seems quite intelligent.
I wonder how long it will be before AI models become the most valuable political and economic advisors we can use?
I was especially impressed with the eloquent wisdom shared in the last paragraph in Grok’s first response to me, “In short, the best path forward combines arming Ukraine to hold its ground, pursuing phased diplomacy with clear red lines, and securing enforceable guarantees—acknowledging that peace without strength risks being temporary, while strength without talks prolongs suffering. The war’s end remains uncertain, but Ukraine’s resilience and Western resolve will shape its terms.”
If you asked me, we (and more specifically those with power and influence) should already be paying attention to what these intelligent machines have to say.
__
*The two images shared with this post were created by Grok to go with the questions I asked above.
There have been hundreds of movies made that include schoolyard bullies. Basically they rule the roost and get away with everything until either one brave kid or a band of misfits decide they aren’t going to take it anymore. Then the bully gets what’s due to him and is put in his place. The movie bully always gets served a good dose of justice and everybody feels good about it.
In the grown up world, away from the playground, away from the movie, big screen happy endings, it doesn’t always end up that way.
No, here a corporation can get away with polluting the land, and causing people to get sick for decades. Here, in the real world, hundreds of people can knowingly cause a housing mortgage crisis that bankrupts millions of people and one, just one scapegoat gets some jail time, while the rest got years of bonuses.
And now we have the Prime Minister of Canada being disrespectfully called the 51st Governor, and the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico. We have a man in the most powerful position in the world conducting peace talks with another bully, while simultaneously leaving the victim out of the talks and wrongfully identifying the victim as starting the fight.
I don’t see a movie ending to this. I see a bully getting away with what he wants for about 4 years. Sure there will be pushback, but all bullies do when they are pushed back is double down. No apologies, no remorse, no change in behavior. The world has digressed to schoolyard rules, and is severely lacking in adult supervision.
We aren’t living in a feel good revenge of the nerds style movie, we are living in a Shakespearean tragic comedy. There will be laughs along the way, but when the show comes to an end the outcome for those involved will be very disappointing.
If we want to see the feel good movie ending, it won’t be one hero protagonist saving the day. No it will be the band of brothers all standing up to the schoolyard bully. It will be all the kids in the schoolyard saying, ‘That’s enough!” It will be his own little gang deciding that he’s not worth supporting. It didn’t happen the first time around, maybe it will happen this time… but I’m not betting on it. I’m looking around the school yard and I just don’t see enough kids banding together, and I definitely don’t see enough adult supervision.
I’ve been using AI to add images to my blog since June of 2022 when I discovered AI generated art: DALL•E. I don’t credit it, I just use it, and find it much easier to generate than to find royalty free alternatives. I haven’t yet used AI as a writing or editing tool on my blog. While I’m sure it would make my writing better, I am writing to write, and I usually do so early in the morning and have limited time.
I already have to limit the time I spend creating an image, if I also had to use AI to edit and revise my work I’d probably only have 15-20 minutes to write… and I write to write, not to use an AI to write or edit for me. That said, I’m not disparaging anyone who uses AI to edit, I think it’s useful and will sometimes use it on emails, I simply don’t want that to be how I spend my (limited) writing time.
I really like the way Chris Kennedy both uses AI and also credits it on his blog. For example, in his recent post, ‘Could AI Reduce Student Technology Use?’ Chris ends with a disclosure: “For this post, I used several AI tools (Chat GPT, Claude, Magic School) as feedback helpers to refine my thinking and assist in the editing process.”
The magic sauce lies in this part of your post: “AI won’t automatically shift the focus to human connection—we have to intentionally design learning environments that prioritize it. This involves rethinking instruction, supporting teachers, and ensuring that we use AI as a tool to enhance, not replace, the human elements of education.”
A simple example: I think about the time my teachers spend making students think about formatting their PowerPoint slides, think about colour pallets, theme, aesthetics, and of course messaging… and wonder what they lose in presentation preparation when AI just pumps out a slide or even whole presentation for them?
“Enhance but not replace,” this is the key, and yet this post really strikes a chord with me because the focus is not just the learning but the human connection, and I think if that is the focus it doesn’t matter if the use of technology is more, less, or the same, what matters is that the activities we do enrich how we engage with each other in the learning.
Take the time to read Chris’ post. He is really thinking deeply about how to use AI effectively in classrooms.
However I’m thinking about the reality that it is a lot harder today to know when a student is using AI to avoid thinking and working. Actually, it’s not just about work avoidance, it’s also about chasing marks. Admittance to university has gotten significantly more challenging, and students care a lot about getting an extra 2-5% in their courses because that difference could mean getting into their choice university or not. So incentives are high… and our ability to detect AI use is getting a lot harder.
Yes, there are AI detectors that we can use, but I could write a complex sentence in three different ways, put it into an AI detector, and one version could say ‘Not AI’, one could say 50% chance that it was written by AI and the third version might say 80% chance of AI… all written by me. 20 years ago, I’d read a complex sentence written in my Grade 8 English class and think, ‘That’s not this kid’s work’. So, I’d put the sentence in quotes in the Google search bar and out would pop the source. When AI is generating the text, the detection is not nearly as simple.
Essentially, it’s becoming a simple set of questions that students need to be facing: Do you want to learn this? Do you want to formulate your ideas and improve your thinking? Or do you just want AI to do it for you? The challenge is, if a kid doesn’t care, or if they care more about their mark than their learning, it’s going to be hard to prove they used AI even if you believe they did.
Are there ways to catch students? Yes. But for every example I can think of, I can also think about ways to avoid detection. Here is one example: Microsoft Word documents have version tracking. As a teacher I can look at versions and see large swaths of cut-and-paste sections of writing to ‘prove’ the student is cheating. However, a student could say, “I wrote that part on my phone and sent it to myself to add to the essay”. Or a savvy student could use AI but type the work in rather than pasting it in. All this to say that if a kid really wants to use AI, in many cases they can get away with it.
So what’s the best way to battle this? I’m not sure? What I do know is that taking the policing and detecting approach is a losing battle. Here are my ‘simple to say’ but ‘not so simple to execute’ ideas:
The final product matters less than the process. Have ideation, drafts, and discussions count towards the final grade.
Foster collaboration, have components of the work depend on other student input. Examples include interviews, or reflections of work presented in class, where context matters.
Inject appropriate use of AI into an assignment, so that students learn to use it appropriately and effectively.
Will this prevent inappropriate AI use. No, but it will make the effort to use AI almost as hard as just doing the work. In the end, if a kid wants to use it, it will be harder and harder to detect, so the best strategy is to create assignments that are engaging and fun to do, which also meet the learning objectives that are required… Again, easier said than done.
I haven’t been able to start a book in a couple months. I still listen to podcasts, but I usually also have a book on the go. Right now there isn’t a book that’s grabbing my interest. My last book was Revenge of the Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell, and I can’t tell you a single takeaway that I got from it.
Tipping Point was amazing. I read that shortly after it came out 25 years ago and I still remember things from it. Part of this is that the original was so much better than the sequel, but part of it is that I’m not listening to absorb right now. For the first time in 5 plus years I’m thinking of trying to read a paper book.
I love audio books. I find way more time to listen than to read, and while I used to read 3-5 books a year, I usually listen to 15-20+. But right now I can’t seem to stay focused on audio.
So maybe I put on my reading glasses and try paper again… but first I need a good book suggestion.
