Ranking animal foods by suffering per kilogram rather than by whether they are animal products at all gave me a diet that keeps dairy and kangaroo and drops chicken and eggs. The Australian version turned out unusually favourable.
Some strategies are built so their own mechanism produces the outcome they were meant to prevent, and a comforting label hides it. That label is a revealed priority: stopping the failure was never the real goal.
Hold calories steady, drop the soda, and compare burger to burger: most of what makes McDonald's 'unhealthy' turns out to track price and class, not biochemistry.
Batesian mimics degrade the model's signal. But what about systems where the mimics help the model by providing cover? Biology can describe this dynamic but hasn't bothered to name it. It shows up more places than you'd expect.
Most explanations for why some people have worse lifestyle-driven health outcomes (poverty, education, social determinants, whatever) pass through the same pinch point: decisions.
Every software product sits on a spectrum from opinionated-and-legible to flexible-and-powerful. The choice you make reveals what you actually value.
When a tool makes tasks cheaper, you don't do the same tasks faster. You find more tasks worth doing. The economics of why efficiency gains disappear, and what to do about it.
Fixed-fee appointments misalign doctor and patient incentives around duration. Per-minute billing dissolves the tension - and the second-order effects are more interesting than the first.
The practices most worth finding are poorly visible to discovery mechanisms, because the qualities that make them valuable are the same qualities that make them unsearchable.
You're outgunned. Ten thousand PhDs have spent years optimising Skinner boxes against you. GLP-1s might be the first tool that actually levels the playing field.
Paths don't transform you into someone new. They reveal and select for who you already are. Getting the causal arrow right changes everything.
The smartest people copytrade the hardest. Not because they're lazy, but because identifying good judgment in others is itself the hard skill — and most people are bad at it.