Oliver Hein

I made a difference in the life of a person today. All her life she was convinced that agreeableness is a virtue. She thought it would make her lovable when she didn't take her needs too seriously and agreed with others often. But although it didn't produce the desired results, she didn't change her behavior. I was able to make her understand that integrity, accountability, honesty, courage and humility are virtues that make a person valuable and lovable. And that she can't expect respect from others if she doesn't respect herself. And that more self-love and a greater feeling of self-worth would help her a lot in overcoming her issues. Most people with similarly situated problems refuse insights (or even talking about it), because realizing their shortcomings hurts them too much. But in this case I got through to her, because she decided to trust me. It was hard for her, but she was extremely grateful. She has a lot to think about now, because she's laying the groundwork for her new future.

@MANCODE__ Habit building is key. Discipline is just needed to build a good habit. Once a habit -> no more discipline needed. Use it to build the next good habit. Repeat this -> win big 😎

Consistency only works when directed at the right things. Repeating bad habits compounds too. So does staying comfortable. So does procrastination. Life compounds whatever you repeatedly feed it. That’s why discipline is powerful not because repetition alone is magical, but because small actions quietly become identity over time.

@MANCODE__ Exactly 💯

"I've also seen shy men, standing in corners, admiring pottet plants, avoiding eye contact at all cost. They usually don't speak much either 😆" These are two types of men, Oliver THERE'S THE CALM CONFIDENCE & THE SHY, SELF ABSORBED MAN If you meet both,you know which is which

@MANCODE__ I've also seen shy men, standing in corners, admiring pottet plants, avoiding eye contact at all cost. They usually don't speak much either 😆 But yes, you're right, of course. Enduring silence is a underrated skill. That's a part of "Don't optimize for being liked".

The man who talks least in the room is usually the one running it. Learn to be comfortable saying nothing. It's a superpower most men never develop.

Spot on. That's exactly my experience. Sharing and lifting others up makes it better for everyone.

@brivael Spot on. That's exactly my experience. Sharing and lifting others up makes it better for everyone.

Ça fait 20 ans que je code, que je crée du contenu, que je fais des boîtes. Et dans tous les domaines où j'ai mis les mains, j'ai vu le même pattern, sans exception. Les gens vraiment excellents, le top 1% de leur discipline, partagent tout. Méthodes, erreurs, raccourcis, tactiques. Ils raisonnent gâteau qui grossit. Plus il y a de bons devs, plus on avance. Plus il y a de bons créateurs, plus le marché s'élargit. Leur succès vient du niveau, pas de la rareté. Ceux du milieu de la courbe font l'inverse. Dès qu'ils ont un petit product market fit, ils protègent. Ils gardent les techniques pour eux. Ils découragent ceux qui montent. Ils traitent chaque nouveau venu comme une menace directe. J'ai un souvenir très précis de 2012. Je commençais à faire des articles et des vidéos pour apprendre à coder. Des mecs de ma promo, pas spécialement bons, m'envoyaient des messages pour me dire d'arrêter. "Tu vas nous faire de l'ombre." Sur le coup je n'ai pas compris. Aujourd'hui c'est limpide. Quand tu sais inconsciemment que tu n'es pas le meilleur, le seul moyen de garder ta place c'est que personne ne monte. Donc tu raisonnes gâteau fixe. Tu n'as pas le choix. Tu protèges ta part parce que tu sais que tu ne peux pas en créer plus. Les excellents n'ont pas cette peur. Si le niveau global monte, ils montent avec. Et c'est pour ça que ce pattern est le marqueur le plus fiable du niveau de quelqu'un dans sa discipline. Regarde comment il réagit quand un autre réussit à côté de lui. Tu sauras tout de suite où il est dans la courbe. Les gens qui passent leur temps à tirer sur tout ce qui dépasse en France, à amalgamer les sérieux avec les arnaques, à décourager les nouveaux entrants, ne le font pas par hasard. Ils le font parce qu'ils savent. Inconsciemment, ils savent. C'est la marque des faibles de ne pas vouloir que les autres s'élèvent.

Spectacular! 🤩

In a few days humans will go to the Moon again. What a time to be alive 🔥🔥

Tough question, but dynasty builders have even more to consider. Wrong choices could strenghten or weaken the dynasty considerably. A strong dynasty needs strong people. People won't get strong when they can't make decisions freely and suffer the consequences fully. That said: All parents influence their kid's future behavior through imprinting. They create their children's belief system and therefore their reality. The choices these kids make later in life are based on that and are therefore more or less predictable. If you want them to make "good" mating choices, your work as a parent starts with their birth (at the latest). Now that we established that: What can a parent actually do? ➡️ Help your kid understand what a good partner looks like. ➡️ Help your kid become a good partner themselves. ➡️ Give them the tools they need to identify good partners. ➡️ Bring them into a social circle where they have a chance to find good partners. These are things all parents can (or should) do. Dynasty builders should consider a fail safe in case the choice is foreseeably detrimental to the dynasty itself, something like a final say. But in order to be effective and accepted it has to be clear from the start that this fail safe exists.

The older my kids get, the more I wonder if arranged/encouraged marriages are the right play. Thoughts?

The valid question remains: Where to put down roots in an environment like that? I cracked it (at least for me) by using 1st principle thinking. What makes dynasties successful over the course of centuries? Assets? Connections? Family seats? No, it's inner cohesion. People being a part of something bigger than themselves. Feeling belonging and dedication, keeping the past alive while shaping the future together. How to achieve that? With tools like tradition, a shared vision and common goals. A family seat also helps to build and maintain that feeling. That's the main reason to have one. A while ago I was stuck on the question of location. Then I decided: I don't need to decide, at least not now. This question shouldn't stop me from continued building. In these uncertain times I can postpone this question. The goal is inner cohesion. If I can't use this one tool (family seat) now to strengthen it, I'll make greater use of other tools in the meantime. Maybe this train of thought is helpful.

@1OHein @feyngirl I tend to agree with the caveat that certain places, like the one the OP is talking about (not sure if he wants me to say where exactly), are incredibly anti family and accumulation of..well basically anything by families. So I can sympathize with his plight.

One of the biggest decisions for legacy families is the choice of successor. It matters more than money, estate, holdings or heirlooms. Get it wrong and your family comes undone. Check the comments for my latest on how to choose correctly. 👇

@feyngirl @Dynastus That's the reason why it's on my list, too.

@feyngirl @Dynastus I'm not very worried about that. There are legal constructs to mitigate both.

I've been thinking about this for quite some time now. I came to the following conclusion: There's no place on Earth right now where you can be sure it will remain stable enough over several decades (or centuries) for you to establish your dynasty. My (temporary) answer is this: Dynasty is people, not location. Focus on the core. A fixed home will make everything easier, but when this is not in the cards - adapt. Decoupling your source of income from your location might help also.

@feyngirl something for me to think on.

@Devon_Eriksen_ @LanceVader @crescendogames9 You're not talking about Tolkien in the last two paragraphs. You're human. We know. Just write 😄

Not sure if I agree or not, but this is an interesting idea I hadn't thought of. Tolkien certainly had a lot of raw talent, mostly in the form of creativity and extreme intelligence. Whether LOTR would have been better or worse for more polish would have depended on what form that polish took. Certainly, a slick, sophisticated style wouldn't have suited. But he also might well have learned to be more himself, better at the simple, rusticated style that made the story flow again. I don't know. I think we need to allow great authors, and other great artists, to be human, to have mistakes in their work. If we try to pretend they are flawless, we are telling them that we need them to be flawless. And we don't. We just need them to write.

The guy who arguably made H.P. Lovecraft great can't conceive of a good that is beyond human concerns and simply exists. So, sorta a flip of the eldritch horrors of Lovecraft. Interesting.

@BowTiedAsset Thanks 🤗 I've been busy in the real world, cutting out the noise, focusing on signal. I'm not done with that, still things to do, so I'll be here rather sporadically for a while longer. And more likely just reading, less engaging. I hope you're well 😄

@1OHein Hey, welcome back. You've been away for quite a while.

Bela is right - storytelling is at the heart of film-making. But this is the one thing most productions suffer from today. I always found it interesting that when movies or TV shows suck, it's due to the gross neglect of the cheapest and least complicated aspect of film-making: storytelling. Think of all the complex, time-consuming and therefore capital-intensive tasks like visual effects, sound design, lighting, stunts, costumes, direction, camera work, post production, marketing etc. where thousands of people burn through budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars like it's candy. And the one thing that makes all this effort worth watching - devide a compelling story - is hardly given any serious attention. Funnily enough, you just need one guy for that. At most a small team. Lock them away for two weeks (maybe longer) with no distractions - that's it. Even if these guys have insane hourly rates - no part of the production is easier and cheaper than that. So, if humans can't get this done, AI surely will. The latest circulating clips showcase that the most complex parts of a modern production can soon be covered without any problems. And we already know that AI understands fast what humans are drawn to. With recent track records that bad, every film and TV production studio should brace for impact. There's a tsunami incoming.

@elonmusk @birdabo 😂

@birdabo A friend of mine suggested that we do a light show with the Starlink satellites one of these days. Would look cool.

elon is flexing so hard today. SpaceX Falcon 9 painted the Grok logo across the california sky. this is some next level marketing tactic.

@EASTWOODX Every like to this reply gets $100😂 Try me

@Wise1Philosophy "If you wish to lose weight burn more calories than you consume." Simple fact, completely obvious - and commonly ignored.

If you wish to lose weight burn more calories than you consume. Take a few more steps a day. Eat one less snack. Get plenty of sleep. Cut back or give up alcohol. Small steps and replacing bad habits with good ones. Good luck.

@Wise1Philosophy 💯 It takes no effort after a while - and it's definitely worth it 😄

@1OHein Worth the effort

Things that hold a family together: 1⃣ Shared meals without phones 2⃣ Shared evenings with board games 3⃣ Real conversations without distractions It's not difficult. Do it regularly, make it a habit. ➡️ Your reward will be enormous: Real, deep connections to your loved ones.

The question is phrased imprecisely, which opens up a lot of correct and hillarious answers with outside the box thinking. Enjoy the ride: I suspect the questioner meant to ask "If any one of the murderers has a non-zero probability of surviving AN ESCAPE ATTEMPT, he will attempt to escape. If a murderer is certain of death WHILE TRYING TO ESCAPE, he will not attempt an escape." 2nd (probable) oversight: - 1st condition: There has to be a real non-zero probability of surviving. - 2nd condition: A murderer just has to believe that death is certain, but that does not need to be true. Both faults profoundly change the range of correct answers. If we take the literal meaning, we'll need to make sure that every murderer is certain that he will die, no matter what. There are several ways to achieve this: - Remind them that humans are mortals and everyone will die eventually of old age -> Death is certain, so no one will try to escape. - If we want to assume a more immediate death, which would make it more realistic, but is no strict requirement of the question, then we'll just tell them that there are sharpshooters all around the field (just out of sight) and they will kill all murderers with certainty at some time in the future, regardless of what they do. That's not a real threat, but it doesn't have to be (2nd oversight). As they think death is certain -> no one will try to escape. Now, let's have a look at the probably intended meaning of the question. They need to believe that an escape attempt has some probability of success without dying when trying. The prisoners might know - or might not know - the quantity of bullets in my possession. That can change the answer. Let's make it harder and assume they know it. In that case, I just need to tell them that I'm a crack shot and will shoot the first one trying to escape. As nobody wants to be the first - because that would mean certain death - all of them stay. We could add some more fidelity and assume that I could get sleepy at some point (although that level of realism is also not part of the question). That would open up a chance to escape. So, we need a more permanent solution. As the question is 'how to stop them from escaping' and not about their well-being, we could devise a plan to eliminate them all, so no one can escape any longer. We only have one bullet, which limits our options, but we do have lots of murderers at our disposal. So, we could organize death matches. Grand prize: freedom for the winner. 1:1 fights to the death, winner goes to the next round - until there's only one left. Or a bloody free for all at the same time, last man standing wins. They would fight, because they believe they have non-zero chance of surviving and ultimately escaping. But, alas, it's a ruse, of course, because my objective is to let no one escape. So I shoot the winner - and can go to sleep without anyone escaping. But there's a potential drawback: As I'm a murderer now, I can never leave the field myself. At least, that depends on how to interpret the question: "How do you stop them from escaping"... "them" could mean "murderers", which would include me at the end. Or "them" could mean "the 100 persons on the field" - which would obviously be the preferred meaning. In any case: Objective achieved. Did I miss something?

Blackrock Quantitative Interview Question: