…delayed reaction [DOT 20/6/23]

…it might be a bad fit…what with how I’m generally rushing through things with these…but

Whether a decision about Trump’s culpability for Jan. 6 could have come any earlier is unclear. The delays in examining that question began before Garland was even confirmed. Sherwin, senior Justice Department officials and Paul Abbate, the top deputy to FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, quashed a plan by prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office to directly investigate Trump associates for any links to the riot, deeming it premature, according to five individuals familiar with the decision. Instead, they insisted on a methodical approach — focusing first on rioters and going up the ladder.
[…]
In the weeks before Jan. 6, Trump supporters boasted publicly that they had submitted fake electors on his behalf, but the Justice Department declined to investigate the matter in February 2021, The Post found. The department did not actively probe the effort for nearly a year, and the FBI did not open an investigation of the electors scheme until April 2022, about 15 months after the attack.

The Justice Department’s painstaking approach to investigating Trump can be traced to Garland’s desire to turn the page from missteps, bruising attacks and allegations of partisanship in the department’s recent investigations of both Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

…&…I dunno…slow & steady wins the race

“I hear everybody kind of wants everything to go faster,” [Matthew M. Graves, who succeeded Sherwin as the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia] said. “But I think if you kind of look at this in historical perspective — what the department has been able to achieve — I think when people get some distance from it, it will stand as something unprecedented.”
[…]
Peter Zeidenberg, who helped lead a special counsel probe of the George W. Bush White House, said Garland and Monaco had to tread carefully because investigating a president’s attempts to overturn an election is a novel case, and they did not want to appear partisan. “But you can take it to the extreme … you work so hard not to be a partisan that you’re failing to do your job.”
[…]
William P. Barr had left his post as attorney general two weeks before the attack amid a growing rift with Trump. His successor, Jeffrey Rosen, held the office for less than a month, and Garland would not be sworn in until March 11. Biden’s pick to replace Sherwin as the U.S. attorney in D.C. would not take office for another 10 months.

At the FBI, Trump, over the previous year, had repeatedly threatened to fire Wray, 56, who had in turn tried to keep a low profile. The investigations of Clinton’s email and Russia’s interference in the 2016 election had been run out of FBI headquarters and created firestorms. Since then, Wray and his team sought to avoid even an appearance of top-down influence by having local field offices run investigations and make day-to-day decisions. In fact, when it came to the Jan. 6 investigation, agents noticed that Wray did not travel the five blocks from FBI headquarters to the bureau’s Washington field office running the investigation for more than 21 months after the attack. In that time, people familiar with the investigation said, he had never received a detailed briefing on the topic directly from the assistant director in charge of the office, Steven D’Antuono.

…it’s not an enviable gig, I’ll admit…context is a bitch & all…but…well…20/20 hindsight is one thing

Takeaways from The Post’s examination of DOJ’s Jan. 6 investigation [WaPo]

By the end of January, with Biden sworn in as president, the scope of the Jan. 6 investigation was rapidly expanding inside the U.S. attorney’s office. Scores of prosecutors and FBI agents from around the country — most still working remotely because of the pandemic — had been tasked with continuing to identify and charge rioters.
[…]
But a group of prosecutors led by J.P. Cooney, the head of the fraud and public corruption section at the U.S. attorney’s office, argued that the existing structure of the probe overlooked a key investigative angle. They sought to open a new front, based partly on publicly available evidence, including from social media, that linked some extremists involved in the riot to people in Trump’s orbit — including Roger Stone, Trump’s longest-serving political adviser; Ali Alexander, an organizer of the “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the riot; and Alex Jones, the Infowars host.

In a decade in the U.S. attorney’s office, Cooney, 46, had gained a reputation as a bold prosecutor who took on big cases. In 2017, he argued the government’s bribery case against Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), which ended in a mistrial and with the Justice Department withdrawing the charges. In 2019, he oversaw the team that convicted Stone on charges of witness tampering and lying to Congress. Cooney signed off on recommending a prison sentence of seven to nine years, but Barr pressed to cut it by more than half after Trump tweeted that it was “horrible and very unfair.” Trump later pardoned Stone.

In February 2021, Cooney took his proposal to investigate the ties with people in Trump’s orbit directly to a group of senior agents in the FBI’s public corruption division, a group he’d worked with over the years and who were enmeshed in some of the most sensitive Jan. 6 cases underway.

According to three people who either viewed or were briefed on Cooney’s plan, it called for a task force to embark on a wide-ranging effort, including seeking phone records for Stone, as well as Alexander. Cooney wanted investigators to follow the money — to trace who had financed the false claims of a stolen election and paid for the travel of rallygoers-turned-rioters. He was urging investigators to probe the connection between Stone and members of the Oath Keepers, who were photographed together outside the Willard hotel in downtown Washington on the morning of Jan. 6.

Inside the FBI’s Washington Field Office, agents recognized Cooney’s presentation for the major course change that it presented. Investigators were already looking for evidence that might bubble up from rioter cases to implicate Stone and others. Cooney’s plan would have started agents looking from the top down as well, including directly investigating a senior Trump ally. They alerted D’Antuono to their concerns, according to people familiar with the discussions.
[…]
Axelrod called a meeting for the last week of February with Sherwin, D’Antuono, Abbate and other top deputies. Cooney wasn’t there to defend his plan, according to three people familiar with the discussion, but Axelrod and Abbate reacted allergically to one aspect of it: Cooney wanted membership rolls for Oath Keepers as well as groups that had obtained permits for rallies on Jan. 6, looking for possible links and witnesses. The two saw those steps as treading on First Amendment-protected activities, the people said.

…I…guess you could say I struggle with this? …because the evidence of guilt & the likely-to-probable-bordering-on-certain ways that guilt connects some of the people involved who clearly thought they could cry wolf at the top of their lungs but avoid the consequences of the ensuing avalanche is…well…legion…but…for the sake of avoiding setting dangerous precedents in a precedent-based legal system…I do essentially believe there’s something important to the principle of the presumption of innocence…so kinda depends a bit which race you have in mind when a lot of the questions going begging incite a rush to judgement…or skip right past it to jump straight to pre-supposition on either side of the guilty/innocent dividing line

Axelrod saw an uncomfortable analogy to Black Lives Matter protests that had ended in vandalism in D.C. and elsewhere a year earlier. “Imagine if we had requested membership lists for BLM” in the middle of the George Floyd protests, he would say later, people said.

Axelrod later told colleagues that he knew Jan. 6 was an unprecedented attack, but he feared deviating from the standard investigative playbook — doing so had landed the DOJ in hot water before. Former FBI director James B. Comey’s controversial decision to break protocol — by publicly announcing he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s emails days before the 2016 presidential election — was widely viewed as swinging the contest in Trump’s favor.

Some in the group also acknowledged the political risks during the meeting or in subsequent conversations, according to people familiar with the discussions. Seeking the communications of a high-profile Trump ally such as Stone could trigger a social media post from Trump decrying yet another FBI investigation as a “witch hunt.” And what if the probe turned up nothing? Some were mindful, too, that investigating public figures demanded a high degree of confidence, because even a probe that finds no crime can unfairly impugn them.

…& I sympathize with the part where if you want to shoot the devil…you best not miss…but

How new Twitter rules could hinder war crimes research and rescue efforts [WaPo]

[…& speaking of sources…u/spez thinks his boy elon knows whats up & might be on to a thing or two…so…make of that what you will]

House GOP moves to ban public access to service members’ military records [NBC]

…maybe you don’t put down the gun?

Inside the FBI’s Washington Field Office, buzz about who might join the task force to investigate those around Trump dissipated as word spread that plans for the team had been shelved. In the U.S. attorney’s office, budding investigative work around the finances of Trump backers was halted, an internal record shows, including into Jones, who had boasted of paying a half-million dollars for the president’s Jan. 6 rally and claimed the White House had asked him to lead the march to the Capitol.

About the same time, attorneys at Main Justice declined another proposal that would have squarely focused prosecutors on documents that Trump used to pressure Pence not to certify the election for Biden, The Post found.

Officials at the National Archives had discovered similarities in fraudulent slates of electors for Trump that his Republican allies had submitted to Congress and the Archives. The National Archives inspector general’s office asked the Justice Department’s election crimes branch to consider investigating the seemingly coordinated effort in swing states. Citing its prosecutors’ discretion, the department told the Archives it would not pursue the topic, according to two people with knowledge of the decision.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/06/19/fbi-resisted-opening-probe-into-trumps-role-jan-6-more-than-year/

…it goes on…much like I tend to…but…well…I had other plans for this post

Another Blow to Boris Johnson as U.K. Parliament Ratifies Damning Report [NYT]

…so I guess I’ll just note that for all I know there is no time-line whereby they could have made it from 0-conviction in a single term of office…& there is a significant amount of stuff I’d argue warranted in principle the apparent absence of which I for one would forgive the DoJ, the FBI & a host of other people if they hit some deserving people with historic levels of comeuppance before the jig is up…so…until they show their whole hand I’m going to give the DoJ benefit of the doubt that they are ratcheting closer to that mark in ways we as yet have little to no insight into…& leave getting pissed about them not doing what I wish they would until I know they didn’t for sure

…which might be overly forgiving…but only time will tell?

Over the past few years, I’ve been researching and writing a book called The Long View, about why our sense of time is malleable – how it can be foreshortened without us realising and how to lengthen our perspectives. Unlike the vast majority of other animals, we have a remarkable ability to manipulate time in our minds. Scientists call it “mental time travel”: as you read these words, you can transport your perspective into the past and stitch together those memories into a tapestry of possible futures.

However, that does not mean our timeviews cannot be coloured, swayed or even diminished. Every day, we are exposed to a barrage of temporal stresses: shortsighted targets, salient distractions and near-term temptations. When these combine with the psychological habits we inherited from our ancestors, a longer perspective can recede from view.

One temporal stress that we now face daily is the sense that we live in a period of concatenating crises: financial crisis, pandemic crisis, climate crisis, Ukraine crisis, cost-of-living crisis – each one blending into another. People talk of a polycrisis, a cluster of related global risks and their effects, and of a permacrisis, the Collins Dictionary’s 2022 word of the year, defined as “an extended period of instability and insecurity”.

…sure…too much of a bad thing is…unsurprisingly…not good

Doomscrolling is not good for mental wellbeing and health. In one study, people asked to watch negative news bulletins were more likely to feel anxious and sad afterwards, and to catastrophise a personal worry that had nothing to do with the content. But more subtly, a daily diet of bad news could be influencing our timeviews. Immersing oneself in negative news risks the onset of doomism, a form of apathy where the future stops being plural – shrinking to a singular path or even seeming to end altogether – without us realising. A diet of continual outrage and shock can create skewed mental models of the past, present and future. People’s judgments become based on what’s most readily available and prominent in memory – a psychological effect called the “availability heuristic”. The mind tends to paint possible futures using experiences that are most accessible.

…& it can be hard to take the time

We’re also affected by whatever the loudest, most urgent distractions of the moment are, distractions in the present that come to dominate decisions. When people look ahead, the quieter information – slower changes that don’t get picked up by the news – tend to be ignored. It’s like what happens when you see a car crash, as the influential psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman once put it. “It is a common experience that the subjective probability of traffic accidents rises temporarily when one sees a car overturned by the side of the road.” The irony is that people tend to underestimate their risk of a vehicle crash, and overestimate their risk of, say, terrorism, when it appears on the news. After 9/11, many people shunned flying to travel by car instead, which researchers estimate caused 1,200 additional deaths in the US.

As we navigate the time-shortening pressures of the modern world, it’s worth noting that our minds did not evolve to take a long view. Our mental time machine we inherited from our ancestors changed the course of human evolution, but it came with flaws. One example is the way the mind tends to equate time with space. This is reflected in culture. Consider the pairing in the opening line of Star Wars: “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…”

This tendency to entwine physical dimensions with temporal distance – called construal level theory – means that, in practice, people tend to place greater emotional weight on events that are visible, clearly in view, while feeling relatively indifferent to events “far” from now. The upshot is that events presented within the daily or hourly cadence of news gain disproportionate attention. Take the climate. Because many of its impacts won’t be seen for years and decades, it’s hard for some to register that the world is heating up until something serious happens, like weird weather, a flood or wildfire.

So, how might we cultivate a healthier timeview? We can’t step out of the present altogether as doing so runs the risk of becoming detached from the injustices and suffering of today. However, it is possible to seek out the long news – of the decade or century, not just yesterday, today and tomorrow. Personally, I have tried to increase the time I spend reading books or longer-form journalism, for example, and cutting back on Twitter (I fail often, but at least I’m failing consciously).

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/jun/18/self-and-wellbeing-polycrisis-time-anxiety?

…it’s a longer piece…though I’d recommend trying to find the time…but then I guess I would say that…&…it’s not like it doesn’t have plenty of competition

The hackers believed to be behind a recent attack that took some of Microsoft’s services offline are likely to be a Russian-linked group rather than a grassroots pro-Islam collective operating out of Sudan, experts say.

Anonymous Sudan, which surfaced in January 2023, has also claimed responsibility for at least 24 distributed denial-of-service attacks on Australian companies, including healthcare, aviation and education organisations.

Last week, Microsoft confirmed that outages to its Outlook service in early June were the result of a DoS attack believed to have been carried out by Anonymous Sudan, which had claimed credit.

The group presented itself as a loose group of hacktivists with a name that suggested they were located in Sudan, and it claimed to be targeting Australian organisations in March in protest against clothing worn at Melbourne fashion festival with “God walks with me” written on it in Arabic.
[…]
The firm also said the organisation’s use of paid infrastructure in the attacks – directing mass amounts of traffic to a service in order to bring it down – would have cost tens of thousands of dollars, and was less likely to have been used by a loose collective.

CyberCX said Anonymous Sudan was also publicly aligned with pro-Russian threat actors and is a member of the pro-Russia hacker group Killnet.
[…]
“It really stems from the Russian government proclivities to drive division in society,” [Alastair MacGibbon, CyberCX’s chief strategy officer] said.

“They don’t really care about the issue … anti-racism, pro-environment or whatever – [they] just get into whatever it is that matters to [harm] targets. In this case, the west.”

www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/19/hackers-behind-microsoft-outage-most-likely-russian-backed-group-aiming-to-drive-division-in-the-west

…sometimes, though…time is of the essence…& the amount of oxygen available is the crux of the thing

US and Canadian rescue teams are scrambling to search for a tourist submarine that went missing during a voyage to the Titanic shipwreck with a British billionaire among the five people onboard.

The vessel, known as Titan, is understood to have a four-day supply of oxygen onboard, which would have started being used on Sunday morning.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/20/missing-titanic-submersible-titan-sub-oxygen-supply-search-difficult-rescue

The submersible that disappeared Sunday near the Titanic wreckage was on only its third trip since the company OceanGate Expeditions began offering them in 2021.

OceanGate had been promoting the third dive for months on its website and in Facebook posts, offering the chance to “follow in Jacques Cousteau’s footsteps and become an underwater explorer” — for the price of $250,000.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/titanic-tour-company-offered-close-experience-250000

…of which more, anon

McCord: I think there are a couple of things that the defense attorneys will be doing. They will probably be seeking to delay any trial. I’ve been trying to debate what is actually better for Trump: Is it to go to trial before the election or to have this hanging over his head because, as we know, he’s fundraising on it? Being convicted before the election would, I think, be very devastating.

But we also know it only takes one juror to disagree with the verdict in order to hang the jury. That doesn’t mean an acquittal. I think there’s zero chance he’s acquitted, because acquitted would require unanimity among all 12 jurors, but one juror can hang it. So I think his lawyers will try to delay because that’s always been their tactic.

And they’ll do that not through necessarily illegitimate means; they’ll do that through filing motions. I think they will try to get the judge in Florida, Aileen Cannon, to revisit the D.C. court’s determination that the testimony and notes of the former president’s former attorney in this case, Evan Corcoran, had to be put before the grand jury because of the crime fraud exception to the attorney client privilege. I think they’ll argue that Corcoran’s testimony shouldn’t be admissible at a trial and that his notes shouldn’t be admissible.

…still & all…necessarily illegitimate means are historically their most go to move with the biggest return…so…devil’s advocate notwithstanding…pinch of salt?

I think they will also raise a lot of discovery issues. This is not a case where the government can just right now say, “Hey, here’s all the evidence and documents; we’re going to send 10 boxes to wherever you want them, and you can look at them.” This is a case where most of the much of the evidence will have to be reviewed in a sensitive [compartmented] information facility, known as a SCIF, within the courthouse, which means I can already imagine his attorneys saying, “This is not convenient for us. We need more time to review the documents than we ordinarily would, because we can’t even take them home.”

…but…not yet doesn’t have to mean never

I think [Judge Cannon] should recuse, because the recusal statute says a judge should recuse when a reasonable person could question the judge’s impartiality. And given some of the statements she made in her rulings at the time that Mr. Trump challenged the government’s ability to review the classified information that they had obtained during the search warrant, some of the language in those rulings seemed to be putting the former president in sort of a whole different category that I think fairly could suggest her impartiality is in question.

If I were at the Department of Justice, I would not right now seek her recusal. One, it would delay things. And that’s against the government’s interest. The other reason is, they’ve been trying very hard to show that they’re willing to prove their case in a place that’s more favorable for Mr. Trump than perhaps some other places, and just litigate this like they would any other case, and they’re not going to try to do something that could be criticized as, “Oh, you’re judge-shopping.” So, I don’t think they’ll do that. And I wouldn’t advise doing it if I were there.
[…]
There’s no question in my mind that anyone else if found guilty of the offenses charged in this indictment, even if not found guilty of all of them, even just a handful of them, would serve time in prison. Should it come to that, there would have to be a lot of discussions within the department about what to seek, and what kind of accommodations could be made to ensure that there is some sort of penalty, but that takes into consideration the difficulties of incarcerating a former president who is still under Secret Service detail. And that might be some sort of form of house arrest or something like that. Because it really would be a pretty enormous burden on our prison system to have to incarcerate Donald Trump.
[…]
Q: When you hear Trump and his allies talk about the weaponization of the criminal justice system, what’s your reaction?

McCord: Well, I think that’s just purely political rhetoric. It’s just so wrong. Any other government official, if convicted of the crimes, would never be able to get a security clearance ever again. And so when we think about it that way, the seriousness of these charges and what they mean for national security, it’s just a fraud and a deceit on the American people to say that this is weaponization of the department.

A former prosecutor explains what surprised her most about Trump’s indictment

…my parents always did tell me too much exposure to the idiot box would rot my brain

Our brains can now relax. Whatever cerebral nooks and crannies we employed, for instance, to read paper maps, or to use sextants and compasses and chronometers to find out where we were, have now been put into cold storage: GPS has given us all the direction we might ever need. Not sure how to spell a word or how best to compose a sentence? From the 1980s onward there has been no urgent further need for an OED or a copy of Fowler’s Modern English Usage: Commodore’s WordCheck and its successors have such matters taken care of.

And after the presentation in April 1998 at a conference in Brisbane by two (now very rich) young Americans named Page and Brin, of their paper The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine, we had Google, which, for the past quarter-century, has been able to answer all our questions about just about anything in microseconds. OpenAI is currently inventing even more advanced things that promise to blow out of the water whatever still remains of the requirement to do mental work.

This has in recent months led to widespread hand-wringing. Our minds, it is said, will inevitably fall out of use, atrophying, or distending, whichever is worse.

…but…I’m also something of a fan of the golden mean

This is one vision of our future doom. But I am not a doomsayer – not so far as our minds are concerned, at least. I challenge the notion that all is now going to intellectual hell. Rather I see ample reason for optimism. And I draw this hope from the sextet of Ancient Greeks who laid the foundations for and defined the very idea of knowledge: Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus and Euclid.

These figures, rightly revered and sanctified by time, had minds essentially little different from the finest of our own today – except in one important respect: there was, in the centuries in which these men lived, so much less for them to know.

Karl Popper’s droll and much-quoted remark that “knowledge is finite but ignorance is infinite” is objectively true, of course – and yet the amount of knowledge in our contemporary mental universe is immeasurably more vast than that in which the intellectual elite of classical times existed. These six and their like travelled little (Aristotle excepted), existing in a world necessarily circumscribed by so little known geography, by very much less history, by the existence of so little written prior description.
[…]
Fanciful though it may sound, this new-made post-AI society could even see the emergence of a new Euclid, a new Plato, a new Herodotus. Such figures may now be waiting in the wings, ready to rise from the ashes of whoever created Milton Keynes, maybe to write us a new edition of the Ethics, or teach us afresh the true worth of human happiness, as Aristotle did so impeccably, 2,500 years ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jun/19/the-big-idea-will-ai-make-us-stupid

…I’m not so sure that you can apply that golden mean to politics…but…like a lot of things…I don’t have time for that right now

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/20/uk-economy-in-growth-doom-loop-after-decades-of-underinvestment

…&…unless you unlike me can avail yourself of the miracle restorative powers of a nap

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jun/20/short-daytime-naps-may-keep-brain-healthy-as-it-ages-study-says

…or…a spot of light relief

A few weeks into the pandemic, Charlie Brooker didn’t know what to do with Black Mirror. “At the moment I don’t know what stomach there would be for stories about societies falling apart, so I’m not working away on one of those,” he told the Radio Times in May 2020. “I’m sort of keen to revisit my comic skill set, so I’ve been writing scripts aimed at making myself laugh.”
[…]
For some years now, Black Mirror has been stymied by the sense that it exists solely as a vessel for predicting the future. Samsung has patented a video-recording contact lens that acts like the chip from The Entire History of You. Neural networks can reproduce the vocabulary and speech patterns of your dead loved ones, like in Be Right Back. The Chinese government has tested a system that punishes citizens who demonstrate poor social etiquette, like in Nosedive. There was that whole thing about David Cameron being inside a pig.

But to watch the newest batch of Black Mirror episodes is to sense that Brooker really, really doesn’t want that to happen again. For much of the new season, technology barely even features at all. In fact, the most traditionally Black Mirrorish episode – the feature-length space-set Aaron Paul melodrama Beyond the Sea – is easily the weakest of the lot. But the rest of it has the feeling of a self-willed backlash against everything that Black Mirror used to be. Unless humanity is suddenly overwhelmed by an onslaught of demons and werewolves (which admittedly, the way things are going, isn’t impossible) then the sense is that Brooker is all too eager to relinquish his role as soothsayer-in-chief.

[…] The first two episodes of season six primarily exist as a way to allow Brooker to lash out at his paymasters in extremely petulant (and wonderful) fashion. There is Loch Henry which, once it lumbers up enough momentum, becomes one of the most precise critiques of true-crime documentaries – the genre that clogs up a million Netflix submenus – that has ever been made. Every uneasy feeling you have ever experienced watching one of these documentaries is parcelled up and delivered with barely concealed fury.

The same goes for the standout episode of the season, and potentially the entire show; the opener Joan is Awful. Not only is it the funniest Black Mirror episode ever, but the sheer force of its satire – aimed at glossy, dramatised biopic series like Netflix’s Inventing Anna and Dirty John – is truly breathtaking. To watch either of these two episodes is to understand that Brooker has now come full circle. These aren’t television episodes. They’re entries from the spoof television listings site he used to run, TV Go Home. And, quite honestly, they’re all the better for it.

The unifying antagonist of both Joan is Awful and Loch Henry is Streamberry, an all-powerful streaming service with a distinctive Netflix-style red logo and “Tu-dum” jingle. Black Mirror depicts Streamberry executives as craven engagement-obsessed opportunists who exist without any form of moral centre whatsoever, and the episodes would feel like extreme self-sabotage if it weren’t for the fact that Netflix pays Brooker millions of dollars for his content. They’re so effective, and so much more focused than Brooker has been for years, that you’d like to see him sharpen his axe even further.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/jun/19/black-mirror-charlie-brooker-is-trolling-netflix-and-its-breathtaking

…or…mix & match…after all…horses for courses?

It's kind of what you'd expect when you have a show hosted by a stupid person's idea of a smart person. pic.twitter.com/fEa136n45e

— Ashley Lynch ✂️🎞️ (@ashleylynch) June 18, 2023

…appearances can be deceptive & all…& sometimes that’s a big deal when you don’t see the difference in density of information available when you’re attuned to it…or to put it another way

we all made fun of elon musk when he wanted to further torture the thai cave kids by sticking them in a tiny metal coffin but his big mistake was not requiring them to then pay $250k upon surfacing

— Ashley Feinberg (@ashleyfeinberg) June 19, 2023

…you can tune into the signal through the noise

lmao

— Ashley Feinberg (@ashleyfeinberg) June 19, 2023

…so…not all “deep dives” are equal…& there’s more than one way to think about taking a deep breath?