Incorruptible Organizations AMA with Eric Ries. Wednesday 2/4 at 3:00 PM CT

Lean Startup author who now focuses on legal structures to protect mission-driven organizations from corruption. incorruptible.co

Free book giveaway! Register here.

Incorruptible Organizations AMA with Eric Ries. Wednesday 2/4 at 3:00 PM CT

Lean Startup author who now focuses on legal structures to protect mission-driven organizations from corruption. incorruptible.co

Free book giveaway! Register here.

Incorruptible Organizations AMA with Eric Ries. Wednesday 2/4 at 3:00 PM CT

Lean Startup author who now focuses on legal structures to protect mission-driven organizations from corruption. incorruptible.co

Free book giveaway! Register here.

AMA with Jeffrey Ladish. Wednesday 2/4 at 2:00 PM CT

Executive director of Palisade Research; studying AI loss of control risks.

AMA with John Mackey. Wednesday, 2/11 at 2:00 PM CT

We’re here to talk about A Course in Miracles, and The Disappearance of the Universe, and how we can help each other home with the practices of true forgiveness.

John Mackey is well known as the co-founder of Whole Foods (and CEO for 44 years), innovator in Conscious Capitalism (including creating billion dollar company while changing food systems for the better, implementing executive salary caps, radical health care and employee wellness programs, etc,) and most recently founder of Love.life - a cutting edge medicine, nutrition, fitness, center w/ pickleball, cafe. 

So.. who’s winning in y’all’s opinion?

On the plethora of Therapeutic modalities.

There's a genre of book that's the therapy modality book. They're all the same. They go

I was a therapist and what I was doing wasn't working, and then I discovered <specific technique the book is advocating> and then it cured me and all my clients and now things are great and we just need to teach everybody this technique.

So many therapy books are like this. Focussing, the IFS book, the EFT book, to name a few. The various ACT books. Waking the Tiger.

And the specific technique is different from book to book. Radically different. And even contradictory.

So what's going on here? Apart from probably there's some book somewhere about how to write a therapy book, or some ghostwriter that's cranking these out?

If we take these stories as more or less true, how do we make sense of these seeming contradictions?

This is not a rhetorical question! I'm going to give you my best guess below, but please take a moment to think of your answer, and ideally post it in the comments for everyone to see. I am very much interested in other answers here.

Ok, my best guess (at least, the guess that I find most interesting):

What works is having a therapist who believes they are helping. It's like the placebo effect. If the doctor handing you a sugar pill is like "Yeah, idk, people told me this is helpful. lmk what you think", my guess is, you're not going to get much placebo effect out of that pill (actually they've done research and you do still get some but not as much iirc).

So when the therapist is out of school, they're doing what they were told works, but for a certain kind of mind, that doesn't give them confidence. So then they have to go on a big heroes journey, and come back with some technique, some approach, that for whatever reason they believe in.

Now they're back, and they believe it works, and low and behold, it does!

It's like Dumbo's magic feather.

"some technique, some approach, that for whatever reason they believe in."

So why do they believe in the technique they chose? Because they love to do it. Because, when they're doing it, they feel most like themselves, and they feel most connected with the person they're working with. Or they feel most connected with what they consider important, about a mind, about a heart, about a life.

And maybe this gives it some extra sauce too. Maybe this love of themselves, this intrinsic interest, radiates out, and reminds their clients that they too can love themselves, love life, be enthusiastic, and intrinsically interested.

Or maybe that last part is just what I have come to believe works ;)

On the plethora of Therapeutic modalities.

There's a genre of book that's the therapy modality book. They're all the same. They go

I was a therapist and what I was doing wasn't working, and then I discovered <specific technique the book is advocating> and then it cured me and all my clients and now things are great and we just need to teach everybody this technique.

So many therapy books are like this. Focussing, the IFS book, the EFT book, to name a few. The various ACT books. Waking the Tiger.

And the specific technique is different from book to book. Radically different. And even contradictory.

So what's going on here? Apart from probably there's some book somewhere about how to write a therapy book, or some ghostwriter that's cranking these out?

If we take these stories as more or less true, how do we make sense of these seeming contradictions?

This is not a rhetorical question! I'm going to give you my best guess below, but please take a moment to think of your answer, and ideally post it in the comments for everyone to see. I am very much interested in other answers here.

Ok, my best guess (at least, the guess that I find most interesting):

What works is having a therapist who believes they are helping. It's like the placebo effect. If the doctor handing you a sugar pill is like "Yeah, idk, people told me this is helpful. lmk what you think", my guess is, you're not going to get much placebo effect out of that pill (actually they've done research and you do still get some but not as much iirc).

So when the therapist is out of school, they're doing what they were told works, but for a certain kind of mind, that doesn't give them confidence. So then they have to go on a big heroes journey, and come back with some technique, some approach, that for whatever reason they believe in.

Now they're back, and they believe it works, and low and behold, it does!

It's like Dumbo's magic feather.

"some technique, some approach, that for whatever reason they believe in."

So why do they believe in the technique they chose? Because they love to do it. Because, when they're doing it, they feel most like themselves, and they feel most connected with the person they're working with. Or they feel most connected with what they consider important, about a mind, about a heart, about a life.

And maybe this gives it some extra sauce too. Maybe this love of themselves, this intrinsic interest, radiates out, and reminds their clients that they too can love themselves, love life, be enthusiastic, and intrinsically interested.

Or maybe that last part is just what I have come to believe works ;)

How Google and AI are Killing Travel Blogs Like Mine

I just finished reading this blog post by Amanda Williams, a travel blogger of 15 years, on the impact of Google's "helpful content" algo changes and AI on her ability to financial sustain herself.

And man- I might sound dumb here, but I totally had not connected the dots re: how AI will absolutely destroy ad revenue for creators-- specifically creators that produce written content. 

Ad placement is driven by site visitors, and AI totally bypasses the need for a site visit. Instead, it harvests the information from blogs like Amanda's and puts it in a neat list along with the content of 10 other bloggers so a person trying to find the top sites to visit in Paris never needs to even visit the site. 

This is a problem in that, bloggers like Amanda have to switch strategies-- she now needs a new means of making money to continue producing trustworthy travel content. That might be creating a substack with individual subscribers, creating courses, etc. But her content likely won't be publicly available in the future, non-harvestable by AI... and that's a problem too in that AI's knowledge sources are going to get worse and worse. 

Also, I just can't imagine that the 1:1 subscriber model won't be a losing game for soooo many great writers/creators. It's very different to be a person creating content that people are willing to pay for month over month, especially in niche fields like travel, instead of being paid by relevant brands through ads. 

What do y'all think?

"Why did our friends stop posting on social media? | BBC Global". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN4MNdCAnWA  <-- the first 30 seconds speaks directly to why we think UpTrust is desirable for individuals.

#whyUpTrust 

What men wish women understood about men. This has been trigger a lot LOLs and ROFLs in my group chats. It's obviously over-the-top dramatic with the music and tone and hyperbolic "10,000x" language but it did make me think how much "burden" is kept when you don't talk about things. I think that's the basic premise, woman share their burdens and men keep them to themselves. It certainly tracks for me. 

Key Reasons Taxing Unrealised Gains Is Problematic.  

Liquidity Problems: Taxpayers may not have the cash to pay tax on gains they haven’t actually received. Both mitigation and remediation measures incur additional costs for taxpayers that are not captured as tax revenue to the government (for example, fees and interest on borrowing to cover tax liabilities, opportunity costs from changing investment strategies, the cost of maintaining extra cash reserves to cover unexpected tax bills)

Volatility Risk: Asset values can fall after being taxed, resulting in people paying tax on gains that later disappear (“phantom gains”).

Valuation Difficulties: Many assets, especially private businesses and real estate, are hard to value accurately every year, leading to disputes and administrative headaches.

Administrative Complexity: Annual assessments of unrealised gains create significant record-keeping and compliance burdens for both taxpayers and tax authorities.

Distorts Investment Decisions: May discourage investment in long-term or illiquid assets, harming economic growth and innovation.

Asset Price Distortion Near Tax Time: The approach of the tax assessment date can trigger artificial selling pressure, increased volatility, and price distortions, as investors adjust holdings to minimise their tax liability.

Fairness Concerns: Taxpayers view it as unfair to be taxed on “paper” gains that may never materialise, or to be forced to sell assets just to pay tax.

Double Taxation Risk: You might be taxed on the same gain both when it is unrealised and again when it is realised, unless the system works perfectly to prevent it.

Unpredictable and Negative Government Revenue: Mechanisms to prevent double taxation (such as cost base adjustments and tax refunds when asset values fall) can cause the government to lose revenue in years of market downturns, resulting in unpredictable or even negative tax receipts.

Rarely Used Globally: Almost all countries tax only realised gains; taxing unrealised gains is internationally uncommon and controversial.

Reduced Competitiveness: Increased compliance and cash flow burdens put local businesses at a disadvantage versus competitors in countries without such taxes.

For balance, key reasons why some people argue for tax on unrealised gains:

Anti-avoidance: Some argue taxing unrealised gains prevents indefinite deferral of tax (especially for very wealthy individuals).

Wealth inequality: Wealth taxes (not exactly the same, but related) can target asset-rich, income-poor individuals. Annual net wealth taxes do exist in some countries, but are different from capital gains taxes.

I'm not opposed to Taxing Unrealised Gains because it is evil or fundamentally wrong to do so. I'm opposed to them because taxation policy carries with it a list of pros and cons and there are ways of achieving the same objectives that have far better tradeoffs. And the taxing of unrealised gains has so many cons in comparison.

Good government is about choosing far better options when they are available so we don't have to pay the costs of worse decisions.

IP is a boomer concept in the age of abundance. This is a hot take that really has me thinking. 

I generally feel negatively toward Kyle for a myriad of reasons, but this is a really interesting proposal. 

I’m still noodling on it. Thought I’d share so others can join me in the noodling. 

Everyone should be entranced by a beautiful woman (and it's definitely not a sin). I'm sitting here about to finalize my draft for "what are holding environments and why they are important" as a deep take. I'm on my second day of bleeding and my brain doesn't work very well. 

So I'm rather going to share my deep take on my experience. 

I'm faced with a common battle for women: society follows a 24-hour clock, we function in 28-day cycles. 

I'd be happy to share more about holding environments when I'm at the end of my follicular phase. And for now, I can go on and on about how much the female cycle matters to a woman - but that's not really a deep take. 

What I think belongs to the core of the rage around this for me is the historical repetition of the dismissal of the Goddess. 

Objectification of the female body is a sacred practice, and the current cultural waves of deeming female objectification as a sin is disconnecting us to spirit, aliveness and connection. 

When we're not allowed to objectify the woman, we rob ourselves from the experience of touching the divine in her. 

To put it simple: the woman body offers the masculine the potency to penetrate the divine, and the feminine to surrender to it. (This is the mystery of the dance between the feminine and the masculine.)

There's a currently such a huge split between spirituality and sexuality. And this is just one part of a greater trend of splitting God from matter.

I think we need to thread through a forest full of rage, grief, resentment and fear before we're even close to seeing the woman and men for they truly are. And in an age where we value the wisdom of the mind to the degree that we're even experimenting with leaving the body entirely to upload the mind- I do think we collectively are living as far away as almost possible to the understanding and the experience as spirit as matter and matter as spirit. 

I think this is the reason why we can rape the earth on a daily basis. And also why it's common practice to treat birth as a "medical event". 

And I'm not blaming men or the "patriarchy" for this - I actually think the problem lives in the source and women has their name on this to be reclaimed. 

Prostitution was seen as sacred in ancient times - women and men alike went to temple priestesses to awaken to the Goddess, to find personal development, to mature, to find aliveness, to balance the barrenness of daily life. 

In this split, it's like we're living in contemporary personas, never fully realizing the depth of aliveness available to us. 

The potential depth is so fully present in any presentation of the image of the sacred prostitute. Images that includes wide hips, circular breasts, a provocative form, a reassuring presence, so fertile she would bless the earth with her reproductions. 

And I honestly think the very reason we're disinclined to associate that which is sexual to that which is divine, is also the cause of the separation we all feel between nature and humans, mind and body, individual and collective. 

It all starts with women honoring their body - not just following their cycles, but fully revering themselves as sacred: engaging in rituals, temple spaces, red tents, celebration of eros,  celebrating other women in their goddess form, experiencing the joyous experience of the female body and it's multi-orgasmic nature, and preparing us to be worshipped as the Goddess we naturally embody. 

Women need to embrace the ancient Sacred Prostitute to bridge the gap between spirit and matter in today's world.

I will end with a poem I found in the book "Sacred Prostitute"

For I am the first and the last 
I am the honored one and the scorned one. 
I am the whore and the holy one. 
I am the wife and the virgin.
I am the mother and the daughter. 
I am the members of my mother . . . . 
I am the silence that is incomprehensible
 and the idea whose rememberance is frequent
 I am the voice whose sound is manifold
 and the word whose appearnce is multiple
 I am the utterance of my name
 - "The thunder, Perfect mind" 

The Relateful Company should embrace more job titles. We’re under-appreciating orange.

We’ve included the green critiques, like the classic:

What gets measured gets managed — even when it’s pointless to measure and manage it, and even if it harms the purpose of the organisation to do so - V. F. Ridgway, 1956

But we need to embrace more healthy competition, striving for excellence, even rankings.

one way we can do this is to make more liberal use of titles, and brag on people. @Valerie Daniel is the MANAGING DIRECTOR, and we should have her listed as such in emails and things

What else is healthy orange and how can we transclude it?
What do we already do that is already healthy orange?