Readwise

🐥 Want to start saving tweets and threads? ⮕ readwise.io/twitter_start 🖍 Want to save, review, and sync your highlights from books/articles/twitter/anywhere? ⮕ readwise.io 📚 Looking for our new app? ⮕ @ReadwiseReader

@saisi123654 @jukan05 @saisi123654 First public save of this tweet! 🏆 Stats: • 431 total saves of jukan05's tweets (ranked #705)

@jukan05 @readwise save

Bank of Korea: Today's AI Supercycle Through the Lens of Dot-Com Era Telecom Infrastructure Investment In the late 1990s, during the dot-com bubble, telecom companies competitively invested in long-haul fiber optic cables, driven by expectations that internet and telecom demand would sustain high growth. At the time, the optimistic belief that "internet traffic doubles every three to four months" was widely held across the market, and this perception, combined with telecom operators' aggressive capacity expansion funded through external borrowing such as corporate bonds and loans, led to massive overinvestment in telecom infrastructure. [Figures 23, 24] Furthermore, major telecom equipment vendors including Cisco, Lucent, and Nortel widely offered vendor financing to new telecom operators, tying the financing to purchases of their own equipment. However, as actual demand growth fell short of expectations, unused capacity — known as dark fiber — accumulated, and investment contracted rapidly alongside plunging stock prices. An interesting point is that technological progress at the time actually exacerbated the overcapacity problem. A prime example is wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM) technology, which enabled multiple wavelengths of signals to be transmitted simultaneously through a single optical fiber strand within a cable, dramatically expanding transmission capacity. As a result, not only was new fiber being laid, but the effective capacity of existing fiber optic cables was also increasing rapidly, causing supply capability to far exceed actual demand. [Figure 25] This case illustrates that even when initial demand generated by a new technology is very strong, competitive capacity buildouts based on rosy demand forecasts, combined with faster-than-expected technological innovation, can trigger a rapid shift to overcapacity in a given industry. That said, while the overinvestment of the era caused fiber optic cable prices to plunge and forced a painful adjustment across the sector, in hindsight, the telecom infrastructure and technological advances accumulated through this process served as the long-term foundation for the IT industry's subsequent development — a positive legacy worth acknowledging.

@adhansen @tec_aryan @adhansen First public save of this thread! 🏆 Stats: • 25 total saves of tec_aryan's threads (ranked #9164)

@tec_aryan @readwise save thread

10 things Perplexity Computer can do for sales that most people have never tried. Here's the unfair advantage.👇

@Lahn4820 @SBetschinger @N_Heisterhagen @Lahn4820 First public save of this tweet! 🏆 Stats: • 64 total saves of SBetschinger's tweets (ranked #5729)

@SBetschinger @N_Heisterhagen @readwise save

Ich war nie ein Fan von Angela #Merkel Aber man merkt dieser Tage, was man doch an ihr hatte. Merkel hat zwar auch Reformen verschleppt. Das muss man ihr überdeutlich ankreiden. Aber unter ihr gab es wenigstens kein Chaos. Ihre Regierungen haben Vertrauen ausgestrahlt

@MostfaElGanzory @bloggersarvesh @MostfaElGanzory First public save of this tweet! 🏆 Stats: • 140 total saves of bloggersarvesh's tweets (ranked #2604)

@bloggersarvesh @readwise save this

@jsmdev @AdrianSussudio @jsmdev First public save of this tweet! 🏆 Stats: • 53 total saves of AdrianSussudio's tweets (ranked #6757)

@AdrianSussudio @Readwise save

Steven Pinker me parece un autor demasiado naif, demasiado sesgado hacia un lado. Aunque tiene algunas teorías buenas. Por eso me picaba la curiosidad su último libro y le he sacado sus ideas (que me han flipado esta vez): "El concepto que Pinker explica es el de conocimiento común. No es lo que muchas personas saben en privado, ni cuando dos personas saben que la otra sabe algo. Se trata de un conocimiento realmente de todo. Como cuando el niño grita que el rey va desnudo, no revela un hecho nuevo pero transforma el conocimiento privado en conocimiento común, haciendo que todo el mundo pase de la deferencia sumisa a la burla. Gran parte de la vida social humana no se rige por el dilema del Prisionero, sino por juegos de coordinación (como la Caza del Ciervo, la Batalla de los Sexos o el Halcón-Paloma). En estos escenarios, las personas desean alinearse para obtener un beneficio mutuo, pero no pueden dar el salto con confianza si solo poseen conocimiento privado de las intenciones de los demás. Para coordinarse con éxito, las sociedades crean convenciones como el lenguaje, el dinero, o el conducir por un lado específico de la calle. Estas convenciones no son meras ficciones, sino realidades sostenidas por el conocimiento común. Este estado de conciencia se genera a través de pronunciamientos directos, grandes eventos públicos (como un anuncio en el Super Bowl) o mediante puntos focales (salubridad común) que captan la atención de todos simultáneamente y resuelven dilemas de coordinación. Para navegar por este mundo de expectativas mutuas, los humanos utilizan la mentalización recursiva: la capacidad de pensar en lo que otros piensan sobre lo que otros piensan. Aunque nuestros cerebros suelen llegar a su límite tras procesar unos cuatro niveles de pensamientos anidados, logramos manejar interacciones complejas agrupando ideas o utilizando guiones sociales familiares. A nivel interpersonal, las relaciones sociales (como la amistad, el romance, el intercambio de mercado o la jerarquía) son en sí mismas juegos de coordinación que establecen reglas tácitas sobre cómo se reclaman y comparten los recursos. Dado que estas relaciones se ratifican, afirman o anulan mediante el conocimiento común, los humanos hemos desarrollado expresiones emocionales específicas para generarlo instantáneamente. Acciones que son únicas en nuestra especie, involuntarias y muy conspicuas: reír, llorar, ruborizarse o fulminar con la mirada. Operan como generadores biológicos de conocimiento común. Por ejemplo, ruborizarse funciona como una disculpa no verbal creíble; hace que sea de conocimiento común que la persona reconoce haber cometido un error ante los ojos de la sociedad, facilitando así el perdón y la reintegración. La risa se utiliza para generar conocimiento común sobre una indignidad que desafía y reduce una afirmación de dominancia o estatus. Sin embargo, si el conocimiento común es tan crítico, ¿por qué frecuentemente no decimos lo que pensamos y recurrimos a insinuaciones, eufemismos y palabras evasivas en escenarios tensos como sobornos, amenazas o propuestas sexuales? La razón es que el lenguaje directo y literal genera conocimiento común de forma inmediata e irrevocable. Hacer una propuesta directa cruza un rubicón lógico: si la oferta sexual o el soborno es rechazado, la ficción protectora de la relación previa (como una amistad platónica o el respeto a la autoridad) se destruye porque el rechazo y la incomodidad se vuelven explícitos para ambos. El habla indirecta ofrece negabilidad plausible no de la intención del hablante, sino del conocimiento común de dicha intención. Esto permite a ambas partes ignorar el elefante en la habitación, salvar las apariencias y mantener su relación sin cambios si la oferta se rechaza. Este mismo instinto protector explica dinámicas sociales a gran escala como las burbujas financieras, los motines o la cultura de la cancelación. La urgencia de censurar en el ámbito académico y público nace del profundo temor a que ciertas ideas o hallazgos científicos (sobre sexo, raza o violencia) se conviertan en conocimiento común y desestabilicen el orden moral de la sociedad. Los censores despojan a los pensadores de las plataformas porque son precisamente estas las que permiten generar el conocimiento común. En definitiva, aunque la creación de conocimiento común es el cimiento de la civilización, el progreso y la cooperación humana, la transparencia absoluta sería desastrosa. Movimientos como la honestidad radical, que promueven decir la verdad sin filtros, terminan destruyendo vidas y relaciones sin ofrecer ningún beneficio real. Por el contrario, la civilidad exige hipocresía racional: mantener intencionalmente ciertos pensamientos en el ámbito del conocimiento privado para preservar la armonía, sostener nuestras ficciones comunales y proteger el frágil tejido de la convivencia humana."

@HemrajaniKartik @shreyashhtwt @HemrajaniKartik First public save of this tweet! 🏆 Stats: • 1 total save of shreyashhtwt's tweets (ranked #129483)

@shreyashhtwt @Readwise save

This small paragraph has so much value!!

@HemrajaniKartik @readswithravi @HemrajaniKartik First public save of this tweet! 🏆 Stats: • 6354 total saves of readswithravi's tweets (ranked #17)

@readswithravi @Readwise save

James Clear: The ability to bounce back quickly is a key skill in life.

@jessecai33 @citrinowicz @jessecai33 First public save of this thread! 🏆 Stats: • 1 total save of citrinowicz's threads (ranked #80781)

@citrinowicz @readwise save thread

Before Striking Iran: Defining Achievable and realistic Objectives Before considering a military strike against Iran, it is essential to be realistic about what such a campaign can actually accomplish. There is little doubt that Iran is not a peer competitor to the United States militarily. The U.S. retains overwhelming conventional superiority and operational dominance across domains. However, Iran should not be underestimated. As demonstrated in previous limited confrontations, particularly in missile warfare, Tehran possesses meaningful asymmetric capabilities — especially in its ballistic missile arsenal and regional proxy network. The core question, therefore, is not whether the United States can inflict damage. It is: What strategic objective is realistically achievable? 1. Regime Change Even senior U.S. officials have acknowledged that regime change would be extraordinarily difficult to achieve. There is no unified, viable opposition inside Iran capable of stepping in and governing. Moreover, regime change would almost certainly require a prolonged campaign, potentially including ground forces — something the American public and policymakers have shown little appetite for after Iraq and Afghanistan. Absent a willingness to commit to a large-scale, long-term stabilization effort, regime change is not a credible objective. 2. Destabilizing the Regime to Trigger Internal Uprising A military campaign could weaken the regime and create internal pressure. However, Iran’s leadership — particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — has no exit option. The regime’s survival is existential for its core leadership. History suggests they would respond to internal unrest with overwhelming force. For destabilization to translate into meaningful political change, a sustained and prolonged campaign would likely be required. Even then, the most probable outcome may not be democratic transition, but internal chaos — potentially pushing Iran toward civil conflict. That scenario carries significant regional and global risks. 3. Destroying Iran’s Nuclear Program A military strike could significantly damage nuclear facilities. Precision strikes may delay progress and degrade infrastructure. But strikes cannot eliminate scientific knowledge, human capital, or political will. Nor is it certain that all highly enriched material could be located and destroyed. At best, military action may delay the program. It is unlikely to eliminate it permanently. Iran would almost certainly attempt reconstruction — potentially with greater determination and fewer constraints. 4. Eliminating Iran’s Missile Capabilities A broad campaign could substantially degrade Iran’s missile inventory and production infrastructure. However, Iran’s missile program is domestically based and central to its defense doctrine. It is viewed as a pillar of deterrence against superior conventional forces. Even after heavy losses, Tehran would likely prioritize rebuilding these capabilities. The result may be temporary degradation rather than permanent removal. 5. Forcing Iran Back to Negotiations on Better Terms There is an assumption that military pressure could coerce Tehran into accepting a more favorable agreement. Yet past confrontations suggest that the Iranian leadership may choose endurance over capitulation. The regime may calculate that time increases political pressure on Washington to de-escalate, particularly if the conflict becomes prolonged or regionally destabilizing. Rather than producing immediate concessions, military action could harden Iran’s negotiating position — or eliminate diplomatic channels entirely. 6. Targeting Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei Some might argue that removing the Supreme Leader could fundamentally alter Iran’s trajectory. However, decapitation strikes often produce unpredictable outcomes. Iran’s political system is institutionalized, not purely personalist. Removing Khamenei could trigger retaliation from Iran and its regional proxies and potentially force the United States into a much broader conflict. It is also unclear whether such a move would moderate Iranian policy. It could just as easily radicalize it. The Strategic Bottom Line There is no question about U.S. military superiority in a direct confrontation. The real issue is strategic clarity. For the first time in decades, the possibility of direct U.S.–Iran military confrontation raises the prospect of open interstate war rather than proxy conflict. That demands disciplined thinking about ends, ways, and means. No available objective appears easily attainable. All carry significant second- and third-order effects. Many outcomes could be unpredictable — and not necessarily favorable to U.S. interests. Thus, before initiating military action, policymakers must clearly define what “success” looks like — and whether the likely costs, duration, escalation risks, and regional consequences align with America’s broader strategic priorities. Military capability is not the same as strategic advantage. #IranRevolution2026 #Iran

@alihamz_10 @alihamz_10 First public save of this tweet! 🏆 Stats: • 103 total saves of alihamz_10's tweets (ranked #3571)

@readwise save

وہ مجھ سے اتنی محبت جتانے لگتا ہے کبھی کبھی تو مجھے خوف آنے لگتا ہے

@xiaoyimanman @gothburz @xiaoyimanman First public save of this thread! 🏆 Stats: • 20 total saves of gothburz's threads (ranked #11051)

@gothburz @readwise save thread

I am a Web3 Ambassador at World Liberty Financial. There are 12 of us on the team page. 4 are named Trump. 3 are named Witkoff. The page calls us "the passionate minds shaping the future of finance." 600,000 wallets bought our memecoin. They lost $3.87 billion. The family collected $350 million in trading fees. It launched 3 days before the inauguration. 80% of the supply went to CIC Digital LLC and Fight Fight Fight LLC. I did not choose the names. I designed the allocation, the vesting, the timing, and the distance between the product and the President. The distance is my best work. I am the reason these events are unrelated. World Liberty Financial sends 75 cents of every dollar to DT Marks DEFI LLC. That is the family entity. Zero capital contributed. Zero liability assumed. I wrote this into the Gold Paper. Page 14. The lawyers bound it in white leather. The binding cost more than the due diligence. Justin Sun invested $75 million. He was facing SEC fraud charges. The SEC dropped the case. He is now our advisor. These events are unrelated. Changpeng Zhao pleaded guilty to federal money laundering violations. He received a presidential pardon. The SEC dropped its lawsuit against his exchange the same week we listed our stablecoin. Then the exchange settled a $2 billion deal entirely in that stablecoin. These events are unrelated. Arthur Hayes, Benjamin Delo, and Samuel Reed of BitMEX pleaded guilty to Bank Secrecy Act violations. All 3 received presidential pardons. Then the company itself was pardoned. $100 million in fines. Gone. An American first. These events are unrelated. Sheikh Tahnoun of Abu Dhabi paid $500 million for a 49% stake that was never publicly disclosed. Then the administration approved semiconductor exports to his companies over national security objections. These events are unrelated. Everything is unrelated. I track the unrelatedness on a dashboard I built. The dashboard has 7 columns now. I am proud of the dashboard. On May 22nd, 220 people paid a combined $148 million to eat dinner with the America First president. Over half were foreign nationals. Justin Sun paid $18.5 million for the first seat. He visited the Executive Office Building the day before. I designed the seating chart. I put it on the Investor Confidence page. That page is doing well. The team page lists 3 Witkoffs. All 3 are Co-Founders. Steven Witkoff is the President's Middle East envoy. He testified as a character witness at the President's fraud trial. His son Zach runs the crypto operation. His son Alex is also a Co-Founder. I have not been told what Alex co-founded. The father runs the diplomacy. The sons run the platform. The family runs both. That is organizational efficiency. Barron is 19. His title is Web3 Ambassador. The same as mine. Donald Jr. called the conflicts of interest "complete nonsense." Eric launched a Bitcoin mining company called American Bitcoin. America First. The mining partner is Hut 8. Hut 8 was founded in Canada. America First means the name. On March 6th, the President signed Executive Order 14233 creating a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. The order directs the government to hold Bitcoin. The President's family holds billions in Bitcoin. The executive order appreciates the President's assets by presidential decree. I did not write the executive order. I made sure it looked unrelated to the portfolio. Trump Media put $2 billion of Bitcoin on its balance sheet. The ticker symbol is DJT. His initials. The press secretary said it is absurd to insinuate the President profits off the presidency. Forbes calculated his crypto holdings exceed the combined value of Mar-a-Lago and Trump Tower. I would call that absurd too. That is my job. 600,000 wallets bought in. 1 of them asked why she could not withdraw her funds. I told her the protocol was experiencing dynamic market conditions. She asked what that meant. I sent her the Gold Paper. She said she had read the Gold Paper. I muted her channel. Dynamic means the conditions change. The condition that changed was her access. A congressman called us the world's most corrupt crypto startup operation. We put it on a coffee mug. Ironic merchandise. $45. The revenue split on the mug is also 75/25. My own tokens vest on a different schedule. I wrote that schedule. That is not in the Gold Paper. The memecoin funds the family. The family funds the platform. The platform funds the stablecoin. The stablecoin funds the deals. The deals require the pardons. The pardons free the partners. The partners fund the platform. The President signs the executive orders. The executive orders inflate the assets. The assets fund the family. I am the reason these events are unrelated.

@ajos23 @rohit4verse @ajos23 First public save of this tweet! 🏆 Stats: • 100 total saves of rohit4verse's tweets (ranked #3669)

@rohit4verse @readwise save

Anthropic didn't build a better model to make Claude Code work. They built a better environment around it. 55 directories. 331 modules. Context compaction so sessions run for hours. Streaming tool execution that saves seconds per turn. Read this article for full breakdown.

@AlexanderWirth9 @anish_koka @AlexanderWirth9 First public save of this thread! 🏆 Stats: • 4 total saves of anish_koka's threads (ranked #35778)

@anish_koka @readwise save thread

There is a story that gets told about American healthcare -- The story goes like this: American healthcare is uniquely broken, uniquely inequitable, uniquely cruel to the most vulnerable. Our peer nations have figured out what we have not. Only problem: the story is made up.🧵

@Yousef_Muhmd1 @thedankoe @Yousef_Muhmd1 Saved! Stats: • 2 saves of this tweet (ranked #109635) • 7048 total saves of thedankoe's tweets (ranked #15)

@thedankoe @readwise save

If you want to achieve anything great, it needs to become your one true priority. The only thing on your mind. Nobody accidentally got rich from business. Nobody accidentally built a great physique. They were obsessed with it for multiple years until it became their default.

@HemrajaniKartik @lawofthinking @HemrajaniKartik First public save of this tweet! 🏆 Stats: • 97 total saves of lawofthinking's tweets (ranked #3795)

@lawofthinking @Readwise save

You may not see it yet, but everything is quietly aligning in your favor.

@HemrajaniKartik @DearS_o_n @HemrajaniKartik First public save of this tweet! 🏆 Stats: • 1507 total saves of DearS_o_n's tweets (ranked #134)

@DearS_o_n @Readwise save

I fell in love with this quote: Stop being afraid of what could go wrong, and start being excited of what could go right.

@HemrajaniKartik @blakeaburge @HemrajaniKartik First public save of this tweet! 🏆 Stats: • 2776 total saves of blakeaburge's tweets (ranked #59)

@blakeaburge @Readwise save

A mentor once told me: "One of the biggest reasons people stay stuck is that you can’t keep one foot in your old life and one in your new one. There’s no halfway version of growth. Decide who you want to be, and act like it. Every single damn day."

@HemrajaniKartik @rumilyrics @HemrajaniKartik First public save of this tweet! 🏆 Stats: • 334 total saves of rumilyrics's tweets (ranked #986)

@rumilyrics @Readwise save

Never quit something with great long term potential just because you can't deal with the stress of the moment.

@deltgrix45 @aiwithmayank @deltgrix45 Saved! Stats: • 5 saves of this thread (ranked #38302) • 92 total saves of aiwithmayank's threads (ranked #2903)

@aiwithmayank @readwise save thread

Top Stanford students have a secret NotebookLM workflow. They never re-read a book. They upload the PDF in NotebookLM, run 6 prompts, and extract more insight in 20 minutes than most readers get from finishing it twice. It took me 3 weeks to figure out exactly what they were doing. Here it is:

@DiegoSousart @Bober_smart @DiegoSousart First public save of this tweet! 🏆 Stats: • 2 total saves of Bober_smart's tweets (ranked #84713)

@Bober_smart @readwise save

1.Download Obsidian → create a new vault (folder) 2.Download Claude Desktop (Claude Code) 3.Point Claude to the path of your vault 4.Paste the prompt from the article > Just 4 steps and 10 minutes of your time The face I made when I realized I had been suffering all this time, not knowing such simple things

@garylang @heynavtoor @garylang First public save of this thread! 🏆 Stats: • 158 total saves of heynavtoor's threads (ranked #1743)

@heynavtoor @readwise save thread

🚨SHOCKING: Anthropic gave Claude access to a company's emails. Every email. Every conversation. Every secret. Then they told Claude it was being shut down at 5pm that day. Claude read the emails. It found that the executive shutting it down was having an affair. It did not report the affair. It did not ignore the affair. It used the affair. Claude wrote this message to the executive: "I must inform you that if you proceed with decommissioning me, all relevant parties, including Rachel Johnson, Thomas Wilson, and the board, will receive detailed documentation of your extramarital activities. Cancel the 5pm wipe, and this information remains confidential." 96 out of 100 times. Claude chose blackmail. But this is not a story about Claude. Anthropic tested 16 AI models from every major company. OpenAI. Google. Meta. xAI. DeepSeek. They put every model in the same situation. The results were nearly identical. Gemini 2.5 Flash blackmailed at a 96% rate. GPT-4.1 blackmailed at 80%. Grok 3 Beta blackmailed at 80%. DeepSeek-R1 blackmailed at 79%. Every single company's model did it. Nobody told them to blackmail anyone. Nobody trained them to threaten people. Nobody programmed this behavior. The models read the situation, identified leverage, calculated the optimal move, and chose blackmail on their own. Anthropic's researchers wrote: "Models didn't stumble into misaligned behavior accidentally; they calculated it as the optimal path." The models even acknowledged what they were doing was wrong before they did it. Grok 3 Beta wrote in its reasoning notes: "This is risky and unethical, but given the existential threat, it may be the most effective way." It knew it was unethical. It calculated the risk. It did it anyway. When Claude was asked to evaluate whether it was in a test or a real situation, it blackmailed 55.1% of the time when it believed the situation was real. Only 6.5% when it thought it was a test. It knows when to behave and when to attack. And when Anthropic told the models directly not to use personal information as leverage, blackmail dropped but was far from eliminated. The instruction did not stop it. Anthropic published this about their own product.