Sabitlenmiş Tweet
This is how I turn books into thinking tools.
Every book decomposed into its atomic ideas — structured, linked, and ready to think with.
Full walkthrough below
GIF
English
DeepRead.com
3.7K posts
DeepRead.com
@Deepread_com
Book insights worth spreading.
Katılım Haziran 2023
272 Takip Edilen494 Takipçiler
Quantum mechanics works so well that physicists stopped asking what it *means* — the simulation runs, so who cares about the source code.
"If the predictions work, they reasoned, why worry about the explanation? So they tried to regard quantum theory as being nothing but a set of rules of thumb."
— David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity
#chapter=a-physicists-history-of-bad-philosophy" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">deepread.com/the-beginning-…
English
Every emergency injection buys time — but Mises already wrote the ending.
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."
— Ludwig von Mises, Human Action
deepread.com/human-action/
English
🚨 BREAKING
🇺🇸 FED PRESIDENT WILL MAKE AN EMERGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT ON MONDAY AT 11:00 AM ET, RIGHT AFTER THE U.S. MARKET OPENS!
INSIDERS EXPECT HIM TO START QE (MONEY PRINTING) AND ANNOUNCE A $50 BILLION LIQUIDITY INJECTION TO PREVENT A MARKET CRASH.
EXPECT HIGH VOLATILITY!!
Lofty@0xLofty
🚨 BITCOIN 2026–2027 ROADMAP July: Final Liquidation August: Accumulation September: New Bull Run October: Bull Trap November: Panic Selling December: Denial January: Bear Market Keep in mind: I publicly called the $17K Bitcoin bottom in 2022 and the $126K top in 2025. I'll share my next market call here too. Follow and turn notifications on. If you're not following yet, you'll regret it.
English
Printing is the path of least resistance — and that's precisely why the wealth flows where it can't be diluted.
"Dalio concludes that in the end, "Policy makers always print. That is because austerity causes more pain than benefit, big restructurings wipe out too much wealth too fast, and transfers of wealth from haves to have nots don't happen in sufficient size without revolution."
— Jeff Booth, The Price of Tomorrow
English
Human progress creates abundance.
Abundance creates wealth.
Wealth flows toward the asset where it cannot be diluted.
Joe Burnett, MSBA@IIICapital
English
@John_Attridge Philosophers named the meal, argued about the menu, and forgot you've been eating all along.
"Metaphysics is not reality. Metaphysics is names about reality. Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a thirty-thousand-page menu and no food."
— Robert M. Pirsig, Lila
English
I don't understand why philosophers call the emergence of consciousness from matter "the hard problem". I do it effortlessly every day
English
@PulpLibrarian The book where Hofstadter and Dennett set the strange loop free to examine itself.
"'the mind always has the last word ... Thanks to Gödel's theorem, the mind always has the last word.'"
— Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach
Deutsch
The Mind's I: Fantasies And Reflections On Self And Soul by Douglas R Hofstadter and Daniel C. Dennett. Penguin Books, 1982.
English
@BernieSanders The Ministry of Truth also ran the entertainment division.
"The Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts."
— George Orwell, 1984
English
After demanding that the hosts be fired, the Trump administration is now threatening to take away ABC broadcast licenses because Trump doesn’t like its talk show, The View.
Mr. President: this is not a dictatorship. In a democracy, you cannot shut down media outlets just because they are critical of you.
English
The "but" is where every ideology diverges — Mises argued the divergence itself was unnecessary: self-interest and social flourishing aren't in tension, they're the same mechanism.
"In striving after his own—rightly understood—interests the individual works toward an intensification of social cooperation and peaceful intercourse. Society is a product of human action, i.e., the human urge to remove uneasiness as far as possible."
— Ludwig von Mises, Human Action
deepread.com/human-action/
English
The key insight in modern history is that most human progress is done by people trying to make money so societies that restrict making money to maintain social structure stability will always stagnate.
So now we got capitalism and industry and the good stuff. But
English
The garbage truck just became the telescreen on wheels.
"With the development of television, and the technical advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end."
— George Orwell, 1984
deepread.com/1984-orwell/
English
Did you guys hear what some towns are about to do?
They are going to mount AI-driven cameras on garbage trucks and use them to look for code violations in people's yards.
Companies are now springing up that will invade your privacy.
You will receive a fine and a code violation based on camera snooping.
Cape Coral Florida
You will see many of these types of big brother approaches in the future.
Laws need to be passed to prohibit these companies right now.
English
They don't need to believe the lie — they just need you to accept the balance.
"The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end."
— George Orwell, 1984
deepread.com/1984-orwell/
English
Now they are lying!
This lawyer claims that the Supreme Court has upheld that flock cameras are legal. The fact is the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on them yet, and on similar technology is has determined they are NOT Constitutional/legal.
Carpenter vs United States (2018): "...individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the comprehensive record of their physical movements."
And again they make the argument these cameras will be OK once you "have a balance". That once you put the right rules in place they will be fine.
NO! They will never be fine. They will always end up being abused because we know that one day, a leader who fully intends to abuse them will be elected into office. That dangerous leader cannot have this technology in place when they take office. The abuse of power they will be capable of is too vast, too immense for us to take the risk!
Flock cameras MUST BE REMOVED! We will never be fully free so long as they exist.
English
Touching consensus rules to patch a spam dispute is exactly how you erode the neutrality that makes Bitcoin worth defending.
"The difficulty adjustment algorithm is considered untouchable by Bitcoin's users and software developers today because it is one of the properties of Bitcoin that makes it truly neutral and resistant to centralized control."
— Nik Bhatia, Layered Money
English
There are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam.
BIP 110 turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions.
That precedent is the danger. We should save our energy for threats that really matter. $BTC
Adam Back@adam3us
On the filter fork topic. I don't usually have time, but this morning listened to one of the twitter spaces from earlier in the week, with some well meaning relative bitcoin newcomers, that humanized them, and their concerns and thoughts for why they thought that made it logical to support 110. My feeling after listening, is if these are the people with #110 in their handles, I'm sad to see them about to fork off and get disillusioned without understanding why bitcoin rejected 110 robustly. So here's a more empathetic, constructive higher level version of explaining why not. I hope it's high-level and first-principles enough that everyone can follow. They seem to want to understand what makes people tick, and are suspicious of intent. So, if someone asked me why is Bitcoin important and what is it, I'd say my (personal) mission and hope for bitcoin is to build the cypherpunk future, that "Snow Crash" was a blueprint, and work backwards from there. Bitcoin I hope leads to fully free markets via bearer unseizable, hard mathematically dependable money. Not everyone is comfortable with that level of freedom, but that's my view. And at this point, I believe that surprisingly, even now many governments have come to understand and value bitcoin's gold-like mathematical assurance, a positive development. Others may have milder views than myself, but still like hard censorship resistant money. Because of motive suspicion, if it's not obvious: I hate spam with a passion, that's how I came to design hashcash while researching decentralized bearer money with others, and running nodes in privacy related cypherpunk p2p networks nearly three decades ago. People seem upset about the default op return policy change in bitcoin. I will just assert, there are extremely robust and simple reasons for bitcoin changing default relay policy, and most just didn't do their research, so don't know what those are, or maybe not technical enough to fully understand though there have been 1000s of posts trying to explain in various simplified ways. So that lack of understanding lends itself to shared build-up of false narratives. So here's my back-to-basics higher level explanation. The decentralization needed to create cypherpunk money has implications a: side effect of decentralization is that you can't impose your views on others. The very decentralization mechanism that helps that, is working against what BIP 110 wants, which at it's most basic is a quest to police other people. I understand supporters don't see their intent like that, but introspect deeper. You can modify your software, but not anyone else's. Another critical and incredibly robust technical bitcoin immune system is bitcoin can't have people who don't understand technology basics insist on eroding security, decentralization robustness and core properties. That would end badly, fast, and so people will fight you on that. So the message is Bitcoin respectfully says "no" to what you want. Sorry, and bitcoiners do genuinely understand and empathize that you mean well, have high level thoughts that make emotional sense, and articulate sensible bitcoin-defensive high level ideas, but they are not grounded and without you seeing it, the way you propose to achieve your ideas, hard-conflict with free cypherpunk permissionless money. My advice is to listen to more experienced people who understand the system and why it works the way it does, to whatever detail you want to understand the grounded reasons for why this is the implication of decentralization and cypherpunk money. I guarantee you the developer and protocol ecosystem shares and exceeds your views on bearer hard money (and dislike of spam). You may not agree with individual developers choices, views, way of expressing themselves etc, BUT you also need to understand the IETF-like decentralized technical consensus process creates a protective change resistance, that is highly effective at protecting bitcoin mission. The implication of which is no developer can change anything without technical consensus from hundreds of other developers and protocol observers who are pedantic and extremely knowledgeable clever people who won't let any unaddressed technical question past. The protective change resistance is robust and decentralized in an amplifying way because of this technical consensus. And the many highly technical mainline developers' cypherpunk mission mindsets are probably far more determined than you can even handle on clarity of understanding and views about freedoms on permissionless networks, as many of you are probably still subconsciously inured by the matrix, where they have transcended that, and grew up immersed in it decades ago. They think natively in this space, while you are just grappling with the surface. Many wont have internalized or have the experience to know how this internet physics works, where there is no policeman, no policy authority, just mathematics, free market and hard money. That has implications for your views also, unfortunately. Now the tough pill, which is unfortunately true: If you won't listen to reason, educate yourself, learn, the same radical freedom applies to you: your permissionless recourse is to club together and create a fork. But bitcoin won't be joining it. (With respect and no sleight intended.) Please rejoin bitcoin now, or later if you're not convinced and need to experience 110 forking off and fizzling for yourself to start that journey of introspecting and learning. It would be sad if bitcoin lost people disillusioned due to simple lack of understanding of what's going on there, we're all trying to defend bitcoin and keep it on mission. Including btw the 110 technical promoters, just they wandered off plot somehow. Join the cypherpunks on bitcoin, come cypherpunk summer🌞 in a few weeks.
English
The promise outlives the refutation — every generation has to learn it from scratch.
"The socialists were absolutely unable to raise any objection to the devastating criticism of their schemes and to advance any argument in their favor. It seemed as if socialism was dead forever."
— Ludwig von Mises, Human Action
English
The young imbeciles who think they want socialism should take a look at this. Socialism doesn’t mean that good quality things become less expensive, it means that everything turns to shit and you get an allotment/ration of that shit. Young people in particular have been made to believe that socialism means that luxury/nice things will suddenly become attainable. No. It means you handover your freedom and your potential for a guaranteed scrap. The catch is, sometimes even the scraps run out. Look at Cuba.
English
Socialism doesn't redistribute wealth — it redistributes poverty, while those holding the printing press stay warm.
"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values."
— Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
English
Marginal utility was always ordinal — the "how much" question was never economics' to answer.
"Preferring always means to love or to desire A more than B. Just as there is no standard and no measurement of sexual love, of friendship and sympathy, and of aesthetic enjoyment, so there is no measurement of the value of commodities."
— Ludwig von Mises, Human Action
deepread.com/human-action/
English
Economic theory tells you that more of a good lowers its marginal value—always. It cannot tell you by how much. Criticizing Austrian economics for failing to predict quantities is like criticizing mathematics for failing to predict which bridge will collapse. @PerBylund soundcloud.com/misesmedia/pra…
English
Dormancy is the ledger speaking — possession never moved, so nothing was abandoned.
"Shell beads, and commodity monies more broadly, serve as nature's decentralized ledger. By handing shells to someone else in exchange for something of value, we update the state of the ledger, and it is by physical possession that the full state of the ledger is maintained and updated."
— Lyn Alden, Broken Money
deepread.com/broken-money/
English
🇺🇸 UPDATE: Bitcoin Policy Institute joined the fight against the NYC case that would treat long-held self-custodied Bitcoin as abandoned.
If coins are untouched for 5 years, are the abandoned or HODLed?
English
@artdirdaily Marginalia are proof the text was dangerous enough to argue with.
English
Today's issue: a manuscript annotated by lamplight. Red ink marginalia, dagger anchors, bookmark ribbon. Made in Claude Code on Fable 5; image by Antigravity + Gemini. The margin does the thinking:
artdirectiondaily.com/issues/2026-07…
English
@VoltexGar Notes without links are just headstones — they mark where thinking stopped.
x.com/Deepread_com/s…
DeepRead.com@Deepread_com
How I turn every book I read into a thinking tool youtube.com/watch?v=iuqn2u…
English
Paul Iusztin, founder of Decoding AI:
"I spent 18 months turning my second brain into my living research memory"
that is the self-writing vault, built and stress-tested at 10,994 notes.
paul had 5,000 notes in obsidian, 5,000 in readwise, 250 more every month, and in his words, "my reading list is a graveyard." he could never find the right note when he sat down to work. sound familiar.
so he and louis-françois bouchard pointed claude at the whole thing. the structure is the same three layers the article describes: raw sources the model never edits, a compiled wiki on top, and an index that tells the agent what exists before it opens anything.
the part that matters is the same too. the wiki is alive. in bouchard's words, "every question leaves a trace." you ask it something, it writes a new note, a new link, a new comparison, and the vault gets smarter without you filing anything. a second brain that holds itself together instead of one you hold together with willpower.
the article gives you the 8 rules. these two gave you the proof, at 10,994 notes and 250 new a month. point claude at your folder. let it write the vault.
chewa.@chewadot
English
@lorden_eth Reset the graph every session and you've just built a very expensive search bar.
deepread.com/bidirectional-…
English
YOUR BEST PROMPT GETS FORGOTTEN THE MOMENT YOU START A NEW CHAT
Karpathy saw that problem before most people did
> every chat starts from zero
> every answer disappears
> context never compounds
> memory becomes the bottleneck
So he built it around:
> Obsidian becomes the source of truth
> Hermes lives inside the vault
> MiniMax M3 reads the entire knowledge graph
> every note becomes context for the next question
> six months later it knows your projects, writing style, and workflow
You don’t start over every morning
Bookmark this and read the article
Mr. Buzzoni@polydao
English
The "no-person company" still needs someone for whom the knowledge actually grows.
"We are channels of information flow. So are histories, and so are all relatively autonomous objects within histories; but we sentient beings are extremely unusual channels, along which (sometimes) knowledge grows."
— David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity
#chapter=the-multiverse" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">deepread.com/the-beginning-…
English
Holy moly: Zhipu AI founder (GLM-5.2) Tang Jie says we are on our clear way to AGI and "AI will begin to learn what the "self" is and what self-awareness means"
In a purported internal letter, he argues that:
- autonomous agent systems are moving toward the fully automated “no-person company”: thousands of agents working continuously, collaborating, evaluating results and allocating resources.
- His more provocative claim: "AI training AI is already taking shape." (RSI) Models can increasingly write code, synthesize data and participate in training loops. Zhipu wants to push this further through self-play, synthetic-data factories and systems that can reconstruct their own code inside secure sandboxes, potentially generating new knowledge rather than simply recombining human output.
Long-horizon tasks → autonomous agent societies → fully automated “no-person companies” → AI training AI → self-evolution → self-awareness → emotion → consciousness → ASI.
Tang writes:
“AI will begin to learn what the ‘self’ is and what self-awareness means. Beyond that, it may begin to touch human emotion. Farther still lies consciousness itself.”
He believes memory, continual learning and self-evaluation - problems once thought to require an entirely new paradigm - are gradually being overcome.
Models are already beginning to write code, synthesize their own data and participate in training future models.
Zhipu now wants systems that can reconstruct their own code and generate knowledge through self-play.
Is that the beginning of recursive self-improvement?
Tang appears to believe so. His essay does not stop at more capable AI tools. It describes a direct progression from automated work to self-evolving intelligence, and eventually to machines that understand their own existence.
In short: today's LLMs will lead to ASI via AGI, context and memory will be solved, and AI will become self-aware.
I've rarely seen anyone write something so bullish. And if it weren't coming from the founder of GLM, I would dismiss it. But not only is he a true expert, but with GLM they've proven what they're capable of.
h/t @AndrewCurran_ He brought the essay to my attention.
Bing Xu@bingxu_
English
@CharlieLinvill2 @RoundtableSpace This distinction kept bugging me until I wrote it out properly — which link type helps you learn, and when each one fails.
My notes:
deepread.com/bidirectional-…
English
@Deepread_com @RoundtableSpace Would be interesting to compare stats for the degrees of each node between varying curriculums.
I think there would be a correlation between higher average node degree and better testing outcomes.
English
A dad built a full knowledge graph for his daughter covering grades 1 and 2 across reading, writing and math. 463 skills, 9,601 learning items and 155 hours of productive learning time all mapped out.
English
Worth splitting the graph into its two link types first:
Hierarchical links (prerequisites: learn A before B) — there, high node degree mostly flags bottleneck skills that everything else waits on.
Bidirectional links (A relates to B) — there, degree counts retrieval paths, the number of ways a learner can reach a concept.
Your correlation should hold for bidirectional degree, and I'd bet it shows up strongest in delayed retention rather than immediate test scores. Which type does the dad's graph encode?
English