Reddit Reddit reviews Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder (Incerto)

We found 40 Reddit comments about Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder (Incerto). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Business & Money
Stock Market Investing
Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder (Incerto)
Antifragile Things That Gain from Disorder
Check price on Amazon

40 Reddit comments about Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder (Incerto):

u/anticausal · 36 pointsr/The_Donald

This phenomenon is called antifragility.

u/Original_Dankster · 26 pointsr/The_Donald

You sir, are 100% correct. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, one of the sharpest logical minds in the world, the same guy who developed the concept of antifragility (and thus was one of the few thinkers who predicted Trump's ability to withstand attacks) has recently written on how extreme minorities make decisions for the majority. It's about a 20 minute read.

u/Forlarren · 22 pointsr/worldnews

Cryptocurrencies are the only monetary technologies that eliminate or work around counter party risk, instead of costly and (necessarily) imperfect mitigation. While it might seem like a small thing, in computer science this is the equivalent of finding the philosophers stone. It will allow such sufficiently advanced technology to emerge it will be indistinguishable from magic to those that don't understand the inner workings.

It's hard to imagine why this is important now, because it's never existed before. Hell it's the biggest reason so many people keep getting their coins ripped off, old habits die hard (almost happened to me but I got luck when my wallet host actually managed to refund me).

You have to try to imagine a world without the need for trust.

How much more could people be capable of if they didn't have to worry about chargebacks, identity theft, (hyper) inflation, banking externalities (bank profits should count against GDP it's pure cost of doing business with no upside once you have cryptocurrencies), etc?

Imagine if banking "just worked", flawlessly all the time. That's possible (implementation is going to take time and a massive investment but that's happening faster than I have ever seen before, complainers need to watch this) with cryptocurrencies, and not possible otherwise due to aforementioned counter party risk (Murphy's Law).

Richard Brown, one of IBM's chief financial architects explains what's possible (if you only click one link click this one) due to the discovery of a solution to the Bysintine Generals Problem, better than I ever could.

Cryptocurrencies aren't just "not stupid" they are actually "smart", as in programmable. On the blockchain nobody knows you are a refrigerator. The blockchain doesn't sit around just waiting for a human to interact with it, it's a complex system with a life of it's own, makes decisions, and adapts based on fitness functions. Users are just nodes in the decisions making tree.

Add all that together and you have an antifragile system, with the potential to become a black swan as we witness the world's first digital hyper-monetization event.

So if you want to get in on this revolution, if you think living in a world that's provably fair is cool and good, if you want to take a chance and be rich, if you value security and freedom, cryptocurrencies like Bitocoin are the only game in town. The good news is due to the adoption cycle, it's still in the very early adopter phase. Freedom really can cost a buck-o-five, then just wait a few years.

Sure it might fail, but really for the cost of a soda you can not only help it succeed but potentially make a shit ton of money doing so, it's the greatest hedge opportunity the world has ever seen.

I hoped that helped. Good question by the way even though you got downvoted, I know what you meant, thank you for giving me the opportunity to share. =)

u/Altoid_Addict · 15 pointsr/Foodforthought

That reminds me of something that Nassim Nicolas Taleb mentions in his book Antifragile. Apparently, quite a few scientific discoveries in the 19th century were made by English rectors with a nondemanding job and plenty of free time to devote to whatever they were interested in.

Of course, to participate in citizen science, you do need the drive to actually do something other than, for example, reading and commenting on Reddit, but I think enough people do have, or can find that drive.

u/GSpotAssassin · 8 pointsr/Bitcoin

Book plug which you are referencing:


I'm actually in the middle of reading it. Great ideas!

u/zippy4457 · 8 pointsr/financialindependence

Antifragile by Nassim Taleb. Things that are Anti-Fragile are better than things that are fragile... In FI terms it means things like being debt free > being in debt, low living expenses > spending everything you earn and then some, etc.

In general being FI is inherently anti-fragile.

u/Cryptolution · 7 pointsr/Bitcoin

> N Taleb claimed that, for Bitcoin to succeed, it must be banned by a few governments. I generally agree; the effects of a formal ban could be either good or bad.

Well that does it. I've gone and ordered Antifragile , Taleb is just too reasonable and I think I need to soak in his wisdom. Im a big proponent of neccessary friction in society, and I think that bitcoin needs it to succeed, which I do think it has quite a lot with statist crying terrorism, drugs, murder for hire, etc, despite all the empirical evidence pointing to the fact that it is our established banking system that is the source of the majority of these issues.

u/myownman · 5 pointsr/ethtrader

This is the book you're looking for:

Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder

u/Iinventedcaptchas · 5 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

I learned this concept under a different name in Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book, Antifragile

u/wonder_er · 4 pointsr/financialindependence

Nassim Taleb wrote a book called Antifragile that gives one possible perspective on your question.

By putting yourself in a "safe" place (not 100% dependent on a job to pay bills, spending all your income, etc) you're making a small contribution to the health of the whole.

A small thought experiment: If everyone in America started saving 40% of their income tomorrow, what would happen?

Plenty of jobs would disappear, but there would be more than enough reserved to fund those who lost their jobs until something else became available.

Right now I'm planning on making significant contributions for my in-laws when they can no longer work. I'm 26, and am positive that I'll be providing a lot of care for them in less than ten years. That means that the more I can save now, the more I can care for them later, and keep them healthy and happy, while preventing them from being a drain on "the system".

Last thought - there's not a fixed dollar cost per child's life saved. If it was that simple, some huge foundation (Gates, Zuckerburg) would kick all the money needed to eliminate all malaria-related deaths ever. They could afford it. The challenges are so much more nuanced than that. So you couldn't save 30 lives a year with your $100k, even if you tried.

Great question, though. I love thinking through all of these kinds of things.

PS have you read Your Money or Your Life? I think it might help answer some of these questions.

edit: spelling

u/Cloverhands · 4 pointsr/whatsthatbook

This is a long shot, but could it be Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb? He has written more than 2 books, but his last big hit, The Black Swan, may have been the controversial book your customer mentioned.

u/Gleanings · 3 pointsr/freemasonry

The problem with censoring "hateful talk" is that it really is just "let's censor opinions I disagree with." Hate speech laws are very subjective, and typically used by those in power to censor those who they want to keep out. ("Criticizing the King or his political allies is now hate.") Hate speech laws are censorship, and antithetical to freedom of speech.

When you are a leader, you get shit all the time, and if that triggers you or offends your delicate sensibilities, you are not cut out for leadership.

Competent, effective people are opinionated and will tell their leadership exactly what they think, because they're the most invested and the ones who want success the most. They're full of energy. They get things done. Even disagreeing with them is energizing.

What I can't stand are the belly aching whiners who never do anything and want to pull down everyone else to their same level of staid ineffectiveness. Their ideas are lame and their execution is a guaranteed failure (if they ever get around to actually doing any of their time wasting ideas). These people are energy sucking vampires. Even listening to them is draining.

If you want to be a leader of effective men, you need to become antifragile.

u/meats_the_parent · 3 pointsr/financialindependence

You might be interested in reading Taleb's Antifragile. It touches on models ("solutions") that are predicated upon assumptions prone to prediction error and how the models' outputs changes when the "improbable" occurs.

u/PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 3 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

The author of the article has a highly-rated book, Free Range Kids.

> FREE RANGE KIDS has become a national movement, sparked by the incredible response to Lenore Skenazy's piece about allowing her 9-year-old ride the subway alone in NYC. Parent groups argued about it, bloggers, blogged, spouses became uncivil with each other, and the media jumped all over it. A lot of parents today, Skenazy says, see no difference between letting their kids walk to school and letting them walk through a firing range. Any risk is seen as too much risk. But if you try to prevent every possible danger or difficult in your child?s everyday life, that child never gets a chance to grow up. We parents have to realize that the greatest risk of all just might be trying to raise a child who never encounters choice or independence.

^ I remember reading about that story a while ago and wishing that my parents had taken a page out of her book.

I'd also make the same criticism of my school/education experience. My education was "touristified," to use a term coined by Nassim Taleb in his book Antifragile, which, in my view, prevented me from being able to learn as much as I would have been able to otherwise.

u/adshad · 3 pointsr/agile

There's plenty of literature that promotes the same things:

Drive by Daniel H. Pink

[Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb]

Organize for complexity by Niels Pflaeging

Reinventing organizations by Frederic Laloux

Management 3.0 by Jurgen Appelo

Agile is a paradigm, not an instruction guide, and so all of these including the one you mentioned can be incorporated. Agile is not some stubborn point-by-point fieldbook, its a general attitude.

Many of the books I mentioned never make a single reference to Agile, because its being implemented in fields completely unrelated to software engineering (nurses doing homecare for seniors, auto part manufacturing, etc..)

u/StampCollect0r · 2 pointsr/business

Skin in the game. Read Antifragile by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

u/prometheangambit · 2 pointsr/PurplePillDebate

Nice. Great post. I couldn't agree more. So I'll just help (circlejerk?).

The intuitive, irrational, and crazy part of my personality I only just started developing as I realized I mistyped myself as an INTJ for over 20 years (unhealthy INFJ for that long). The book Antifragile by Nassim Taleb points out the valuable Dionysian part of our nature and just how fragile these social-economic models are in the face of time.

When BP asks "Fine. RP works, but will that make you happy in the long-term?" the jaded RP reply is "Probably not, but what choice is there for men like me?" Others live and die by the Redpill, but can anyone really believe Chateau Heartiste is a happy, healthy, secure individual? No extreme personality and total rejection of the Other emerges from a healthy psyche. You can't take a man who naturally values long-term mating into a short-term mating box and not expect -- nevermind. You already get it.

u/tekvx · 2 pointsr/argentina

Jo-der. No se si sos un economista, un biologo, o un sabelotodo -- pero la gente como vos es peligrosa... Agarras el narrativo ideal y lo justificas atacando la cruda realidad (y sin fundamento). Espero que seas un interlocutor valido o que por lo menos, vos tambien, tengas autores a quienes haces referencia.

Aca van los mios:

  • Capitalismo como propiedad intrinseca de la poblacion humana:

    "The Delphic Boat: What Genomes Tell us" by: Antoine Danchin (un groso..... en serio.)

    "The Free Market Existentialist" by: William Irwin (phD philosophy).

    "Antifragile" by: Nassim Taleb (este tipo es una eminencia, lee su CV

    Ademas, tal vez te interese este video informativo (porque no tenes ganas de leer tanto) acerca de la historia del capitalismo... son 11 mins. y bastante claro.

  • El gen como unidad basica

    "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. (si no leiste esto todavia, te lo recomiendo!!!! mucho!!!!! pero me parece raro que seas biologo y no entiendas a lo que me refiero con decir que el gen es la unidad basica)

  • Matematica para entender la economia desde los grados de libertad que se presentan en el movimiento Browniano (Stoic Calculus)

    Ito Calculus es un buen lugar para comenzar.

    Este video course de MIT acerca de finanzas es basicamente TODO la matematica que necesitas para entender finanzas o macroeconomia moderna.

    Este video course de MIT es mas orientado a la economia y el rol de la politica en el desarrollo economico.

    Cualquier duda NO QUEDO a disposicion por consultas, pero espero que contribuyas algo de tu parte.... para enriquecer la discusion

    Y a los downvoters: You're all dirty slags.

    EDIT - agregue un video
u/Skrioman · 2 pointsr/getdisciplined

Stephen Covey's The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People contains a bunch of principles that I really internalized and still rely on, almost a decade after reading it.

Nassim Nicholas Talib's Antifragile changed my outlook on life and got me thinking about viable long-term strategies.

John Medina's Brain Rules is especially useful if you're in school, studying, or in some line of creative or intellectual work. I've applied its principles to my presentations, teaching, and personal studies, and I'm really happy with the results.

Happy reading!

u/SophistSophisticated · 2 pointsr/europe

>Speech is a physical, tangible thing that can and does do damage to people's mental health when misused.

Lots of things could potentially damage people's mental health. Strong criticism could potentially harm my mental health. Insults (they don't have to based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender) could harm my mental health. Honest criticisms could harm me mentally. Expressions of hatred based on my political leanings could harm me mentally. Honest criticism has the potential to harm me mentally.

What are you going to do about them? Ban people from insulting one another and using strong language? Are you going to stop people from calling Tories evil scum because that could mentally harm someone who is a conservative ? Are you going to stop people from celebrating the punching of Nazis because neo-Nazis might me harmed by the celebration of violence against them? Are you going to stop people from calling Brexiteers stupid and idiots because that has the potential to harm them mentally? Yes, speech does have the potential to affect someone mentally. The problem is that the mental harm is so subjective that everything is potentially harmful mentally to someone. What another person might brush off easily might make a fragile person hurt. The subjectivity of experience of speech is one of the reason why you just can't go around forming objective policies around this issue.

Another thing is that we human beings are anti-fragile. Our bones get stronger the more they are used. Our muscles build when we tear them through exercise. Our immune system gets stronger when they encounter viruses and bacteria. A great book to read is Anti-fragile by Nassim Taleb who goes into this whole question and shows that a lot of what people believe about human fragility is counter productive. The more you shield others from things you think might hurt them emotionally and mentally, the more mentally fragile they are going to become. There is a perfect analogy with allergies and fragility. The more sanitized the environment, the greater the risk for that becomes.

I also take objection to your characterization of speech.

Speech =/= action. One of the thought experiments I think about around these issues is regarding somebody who sincerely holds a belief that the Holocaust didn't happen.

Now no country has banned thinking such things because they couldn't. However, most of continental Europe has decided to ban expression of such opinions. Now suppose a hypothetical case where this person who sincerely believes that the Holocaust didn't happen is asked a question about it in public. Based on the laws of Continental Europe, that person has to lie in public. The person can't sincerely tell the world that he doesn't believe in the Holocaust because that would mean jail. So we have government requiring/forcing people to lie.

I consider this just an egregious violation of a person's freedom of conscience, and while it is just a hypothetical, it does have bearings on what actually happens, because a lot of people who sincerely don't believe the Holocaust happened do have to lie at the threat of being imprisoned.

You cannot separate the freedom of thought/opinion/feeling and the freedom to express those thoughts/opinions/feelings as you have done. They are inextricably linked.

Speech is not the same thing as an act. A politician can say that he is going to do something. That politician's speech is not the same thing as an act, as most people participating in democratic societies quickly realize.

u/TooFewForTwo · 2 pointsr/changemyview

There are a few things to unpack, here.

>CMV: Holding opinions so dearly that you consider them part of your identity is fundamental damaging to pubic discourse and conversation.

I think it is only damaging to public discourse if you let it be. It's damaging when you believe you are being assaulted and refuse to listen or debate calmly and rationally.

>Changing opinions is usually seen as a sign of weakness or incompetence, and most people are subconsciously terrified of being wrong.

I think there is a happy medium. If you're stubborn in the face of truth and facts, then you're also showing fragility.

>With that being said, I believe that the reason why the split between the political community is so much larger than before isn’t solely because if echo chambers, but the unneeded ego-centric reinforcement of opinions that convince the holder that any attack of their ideas translates to an attack on them.

Bingo. Check out The Coddling of the American Mind. It's a highly impactful article which saw the trend you mentioned years before it spread. There is also a book with the same title. I found out about it on the Joe Rogan podcast.

There are 3 implicit harmful rules:

  1. What doesn't kill you makes you weaker
  2. Always trust your feelings (emotional reasoning)
  3. There are good and bad people... we must crush the bad people (us vs them)

    This style of thinking is at odds with cognitive behavior therapy. It causes distress and depression. If you want to be antifragile then you must expose yourself to different viewpoints. Your mind works similarly to an immune system: If you limit exposure to minor stressors, you will only be more distressed when you encounter something in the future.

    I disagree that it is wrong to hold an opinion so deeply you consider it part of your identity. We are all a culmination of our experiences and beliefs. Some of those beliefs have a stronger impact than others and define us more. I think it is okay to have a belief define you but you should be willing to slow down and listen to an opposing viewpoint.
u/milkywaymasta · 2 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Fucking charlatans. For more: Antifragile

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/tifu

yeah it helps, not nessesarily putting more action to gettting results but it does help get a thicker skin, and when you have such a thick skin that nothing "hurts" or get to you, then you are more likely to not give a shit, and even if you don't really try more times, you still are okay with either a yes or a no. like OP said in his story, you shouldn't care about being validated, wheter positive or negative validation, you should have your own sense of self worth stable. and not care if people say "you are/look nice/smart/beatiful" you shouldn't care about compliments and also about insults "you are a bitch/fatso/fagget/virgin" whatever. just take things as they are.

either way, complimenting, can help your self esteem but if you depend on other people to do your job, and take responsibility for you then you are wrong. just think of how many times you've tried to help someone by complimenting, either you felt genuine about it and said something or you were cool about it and then later regretted it since now you are the source of that person's validation.

i also wouldn't suggest complimenting people unless is genuine, it comes off as patronizing. and also i wouldn't suggest throwing insults either, now you are just a dick, one of those bullies that need to destroy other people's self esteem and building their own. (although there are exeptions for both, either in a really heated argument or the situation)
the point is--STOP! stop recieving or taking subjective critisism, and also stop giving it to others it just doesn't help nobody, it makes everybody a hypocrate and no body wins.

i'd suggest you read a book called "Antifragile by nassism taleb" essentially what i just said build a thinker skin so that you are more controlled in high pressured environments. also look at things how they are, be a realist and be self aware of yourself, self asses yourself and see what happens, don't read too much into things, since everything has context and who the fuck knows what certain things meant. also as i learned from real life people trust yourself, and know your boundaries, and last key thing "you are only in control of your actions and your behaviour, not someone else's" so that girl rejected you, its okay, the thing that counted was that you said something and were true to yourself, you didn't get anything from hiding, but you actually got something from putting it out there in the world, now you can stop infatuation from that girl and focus on other girls or doing to better yourself.

edit: adding tldr.

TLDR-- be antifragile

u/docbrain · 1 pointr/startups

Depends on if you're sticking to the business-centric category or not. For instance, I think Antifragile (although the author is a bear to listen to) has even more impact than Zero to One. I personally know several startup founders or funded companies who swear by it and immediately dove into their systems to purposefully break the heck out them.

Similarly in slightly different direction, I found How They Succeeded: Life Stories of Successful Men Told By Themselves to be incredibly unknown and worthwhile, and Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make Competition Irrelevant to be a "quake" book leading you down the rabbit-hole of marketing.

One last book, because I can't help myself, would be Traction. Although not necessarily a "must read," I perhaps took more notes from this than any of the others, save Antifragile.

u/LieGroupE8 · 1 pointr/rational

> What do we mean by "complex systems"? As in complex-systems theory?

Yes, complex systems theory (the study of ecosystems, economies, chaotic systems, etc).

> Got a book you can recommend?

If you read one book by him, read Antifragile. The Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness are also good.

> You can suggest it in an open thread.

On /r/slatestarcodex or on the actual Slate Star Codex website?

> You can just tag him and see if he responds.

I tried this last time, but he didn't reply. Here it goes again: /u/EliezerYudkowsky

u/ColdEiric · 1 pointr/INTP

Not if you're studying something valuable in STEM. There's too many bullshitters selling bullshit courses on campuses.

Why do you want tenure? I'm sure you have good reasons, but couldn't morally be tenured, if I wasn't 100% sure that I was teaching something valuable. If I didn't feel that what I am teaching, that is something people actually need and want despite my tenure. Just like if I were a drug dealer or a slaver, then my success would be dependent on people suffering from it.

What are you studying?

The books I am paraphrasing from are Antifragile, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Worthless, by Aaron Clarey.

u/nuixy · 1 pointr/teslamotors

This kind of thinking is called Antifragile and if you're interested in reading about it, you can find it at this non-affiliate Amazon link.

u/mashakos · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

I am going to apologise in advance if this sounds unclear but this is me trying to articulate a world view I have developed over years of contemplating the existence of mankind and reading volumes of what others have concluded (this, this and this among others)

Before societies and civilisations were formed, groups existed by meeting the challenges of basic survival:

  • If we do not collect enough food, we will die of hunger
  • If we do not remain vigilant in our defences, we will eventually die from predators and attackers picking us off
  • If we do not construct means of conflict resolution and resource distribution, we will die from killing each other

    Each of the above led to an exponential growth in all the areas of human development:

  • hunting to secure more sources of food, cooking and curing to extend the life span of edible food.

  • tools to augment the physical capabilities of humans (hunt and attack from a distance, or make clothing and housing),

  • skills and arts to improve on the methods of the above

  • oral written recording, social structures to better manage groups and train future generations in the collective knowledge

    Groups therefore developed systems and tools to more efficiently meet these challenges.

    The more these groups grew into societies and civilisations, the more efficient their methods of survival, the larger the distance between the group and these dangers.

    Societies reach a fork in the road where they have two choices:

  1. Remain on the path of continuously improving their methods of survival. Improve their technology, defences, distribution mechanisms.
  2. Settle into an equilibrium with their environment and focus inward on goals they previously could not entertain. This could include wealth, pleasure. It can also include spirituality, cultural or individual identity

    I have concluded from my years contemplating this cosmic riddle, that taking the second path which leads to an equilibrium generally leads to the society leaving it's survival capabilities to stagnate and atrophy. This might sound like I am saying the society is decaying but it's actually the opposite, they have reached such a status in terms of organisation and command of their environment that they can exist and thrive in a stable state almost indefinitely.

    That is, until they come into contact with a civilisation that remained on the hard road of honing the mechanisms of survival. Building on the fundamentals of survival (by that I mean tool building to production, skills to science, tribal councils to political machinery) do not lead to equilibrium, they lead to conflict yes but ultimately growth and strength.

    To sort of clarify:

    the native americans and their culture had a full command of their environment, they no longer feared nature and their fellow man posing an existential threat to them. As a result they diverted their attentions inwards, towards the meaning of nature, spirituality and identity. That was great when they were the only ones roaming the lands in full command of it. Unfortunately, having not built on their already solid base from 20,000 years of survival skills/mechanisms in the americas, they left themselves defenceless in the face of a civilisation that was forged in the fires of centuries of chaos, war, conquest and disease. Technology, politics and the art of war are not these monoliths that are thrust upon humanity. They are incremental advances over centuries by hard work, risk taking and sacrifice from millions of society's best and brightest. The fatal flaw that the native americans committed was that their best and brightest gradually turned away from working on the basics of survival and instead chose to focus on the metaphysical. The rich and beautiful culture they accumulated was useless as tools in the face of gunpowder, iron and germ warfare.


    How does this relate to the trends in western countries in relation to restructuring the systems of gender identity? I believe that it is a small thread in a grand tapestry of ideologies meant to create an artificial form of equilibrium, drawing the energies of its citizenry down a path diverting them from building on those tools/mechanisms based on the basics of survival and into the metaphysical/spiritual. The general consensus being that society has reached a peak that leaves them unchallenged by outsiders: the advances of previous generations in science, technology and military prowess have been perfected, are no longer a pressing matter for society at large.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with seeking an equilibrium or focusing on the metaphysical, it is the vector that society is set to follow, the vector veering away from the basics of survival, which is the danger.

    Hope that clarifies my initial reply.
u/TheAethereal · 1 pointr/compsci

All of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's books, but especially Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder.

Also, get yourself an Audible account.

u/NuancedThinker · 1 pointr/ESTJ

I also have to recommend Antifragile by Taleb. Extraordinary.

u/Vontom · 1 pointr/personalfinance

If you're further interested in this idea I think that Antifragile by Taleb is definitely along this vein

u/Ant-n · 1 pointr/btc

>Jesus Christ dude, learn English. That is not what I wrote, I quoted exactly what your unfalsifiable statement was. Trying to explain even the most basic things to you is a massive hassle.

>And yeah, I'm sure you're going to cry now that I'm being a meanie. But seriously, you have shown a failure to comprehend the most basic form of discussion. I explicitly stated, using quotes, what your unfalsifiable claim was, and you completely missed that.

Hahaa you make me laugh man..

You quoted nothing,

I have made no unfalsifiable statement, if I did one please quote it to me.

I am waiting.

>$>So Bitcoin being anti-fragile is an unfalsifiable statement?

>And the answer to your question is no, I've already explained to you why it is not anti-fragile. You failed to address that and just repeated what was written previously like the braindead zombie you are:

>> Him: Bitcoin is antifragile

It show you basic misunderstanding of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin clearly show characteristics of anti-fragile system.

I recommend you educate yourself a little bit:

Your are the classic small blocker that feel that Bitcoin need "expert" to adjust his economic property or it will break.

You love central planning I recommend returning to FIAT :) you will love it, some many smart people involved in it. Wow!! The future I can tell you!!

Another read, but I am not sure that's you thing :) easier to follow authorities than educate yourself!

>You made no attempt to actually justify what you wrote, let alone argue against what I wrote. Seriously, what do you think you were contributing there? Are you just here to regurgitate what you've heard others write on /r/btc in broken English?

You keep repeating yourself, you have yet to make an arguments.

It is almost like, you have no idea what you are talking about :)

I am still waiting for your arguments.. but I don't hold my breath, English man!

>But why should I even bother? Do you even understand the words I'm writing now?

Well I can pick up when someone use personal attack to hide ignorance :)

>Do you have the mental capacity to learn basic English?

Obviously I don't!

Hahaa thank for the good laugh!

u/boxcutter729 · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

I like the general way you're thinking. I've become interested lately in why states form and how they are destabilized or prevented from forming from an anthropological standpoint. What conditions, technological, ecological, cultural, can place limits on their growth and aggregation? Shatter them into small manageable pieces or keep them from forming in the first place?

This book really got me thinking about that angle, and you might enjoy it.

This one also carries some similar thoughts, I recall an excerpt about the advantages of smaller city-states vs. large modern nations:

This one also has some interesting thoughts about the vulnerabilities of modern states and what enables the groups that are currently able to resist them, though I'm still undecided as to how much of it was just current conventional military thought regarding guerilla warfare repackaged as Silicon Valley fluff for people that have never had a standard western military officer's education. I've read a couple of books by David Kilcullen, who I believe closely represents the current "establishment" thinking on western counterinsurgency doctrine, and he repeated some of Robb's points about the decentralized network nature of modern guerrilla movements. Still, food for thought.

u/rjhintz · 1 pointr/aws

Depends on what New Age Tech faction you belong to. "Antifragile," from Nassim Taleb's Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder is supposed to mean that some processes, when properly engineered, gain additional resilience from disorder. Apologies for any mischaracterization.

This is not, as I understand it, the same as getting stronger from being stressed, as you might expect a system to get more resilient from lessons learned from the usual "game day" exercises. It's more the concept: "Make armor better by establishing an anti armor team whose job it is to find the weak spots in the armor."

I like the way things were expressed in the video, but I find Taleb a bit much. He actively despises academic work in his area, especially if it contradicts his thinking. YMMV.

u/mikenseer · -4 pointsr/oculus

You should check out the book Antifragile for very well researched reasons why Elon's foolishness is exactly what he needs to succeed.