Why this effect? Not because @GretaThunberg ate less meat or encouraged her family not to fly: if that's all she'd done, we'd never know her name. No, it's because she did one simple but incredibly powerful thing we can all emulate: she raised her voice to advocate for change.

Every year, I add 2 new low-carbon habits to my life. But every DAY, I do the most impt thing anyone can to do change the system we live in: I TALK about climate change. Not the science details, but why it matters and how, working together, we can fix it. https://t.co/6v7DAA8BlB
Individual's power to alter the world is splashed across human history; and social science is starting to understand how we do this. A tsunami of change begins by changing social norms & accumulating a groundswell of (at first) nearly invisible support. https://t.co/89Qrbik1bP
And who's the best person to talk about climate change? It turns out we scientists are the second most trusted messengers. The number one most effective person is YOU: to friends, family and people you know. https://t.co/4WAfsx1kQW
I'm so convinced of this that I've spent the last year reading dozens of books on everything from philosophy to neuroscience & 100s of articles from psychology to social change & putting it all into this book that I'm VERY excited about. Out in Sept 2021! https://t.co/j8gqYXO1Xm
PS. For the data on why talking about it is so important, check out these three maps from @YaleClimateComm. If we don't talk about it, why would anyone care? And if no one cares, how will we act?
PPS. for more on the importance of walking the walk and (of course) talking about what we and others are doing , which is the #1 mechanism by which we alter social norms, see ... https://t.co/wtgXsVQlgs
PPPS. For valuable insight on the tension between individual actions and the system-wide change that's truly needed to fix climate change, please read these two excellent essays by @MaryHeglar and @MichaelEMann:
1/ https://t.co/e1MDOIiXZe
2/ https://t.co/YXr5Uq3WWN
And just to be clear, I'm not advocating spending much time talking to dismissives. This thread explains why. I'm talking about talking to the 90% of us whose perspectives and opinions can be moved! https://t.co/3TZQQQpFYX

More from For later read

Hi @EdinburghUni @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The DIVERSITY INFORMATION section in yr job application mentions 'legal equality duties'. You then ask "What is your gender identity?" with options

Female
Male
Non-binary
Not-listed
Other

1/13


'Gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

2/13


Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'non-binary' and 'other' are not valid options.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender identity' is not a synonym for sex.

3/13


You then ask "Does your gender identity match your sex registered at birth?"

4/13


Again, 'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

5/13
How I created content in 2020

A thread...

Back in Aug 2016, I started creating content to share my experiences as an entrepreneur.
Over 3 years I had put out 1,200+ hours of content - posting every week without


Little did I know that something I started almost 4 years back would give my life an entirely new direction.

At the end of 2019, my biggest platform was LinkedIn with ~700K followers.

In Jan 2020, I decided to build a team that would help me with the content.

I ran a month long recruitment drive to hire a team of interns.

It comprised 4 detailed rounds - starting with my loved 20 questions, then an assignment, then a WhatsApp video round and finally F2F.

Through 1,200+ applications, I finally selected 6 profiles, starting March.

I am a firm believer in @peterthiel's one task, one person philosophy
So the team was structured such that everyone was responsible for ONLY one task

1. Content ideas
2. Videography
3. Video editing
4. LinkedIn (+TikTok) distribution
5. FB+IG distribution
6. YouTube distribution
This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.

@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.

Some counterpoints 👇


1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.

This does not seem self-evident to me


Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇

If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted

2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.

But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.

Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.

3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:

"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."

To

"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."

IMO the latter statement is incorrect.
the whole point of Dunks was you could go cop them at VIM whenever you wanted for $65. this shit is like having to enter a raffle to buy milk.


like seriously why not make a ton more of them if they're gonna be so sought-after? they land at outlets? so? nike still makes money off that.

the only reason to keep making them so limited is that they KNOW all that matters is the profit on the flip and if they were readily available FEWER people would want them, not more

the whole system is super broken, but it's just gonna go the way it goes, because at this point it all caters to the secondary market. the only reason Nike can sell Jordan 1s for $200 is because the people buying them can flip them for $500

adjusted for inflation, a $65 AJ1 in 1985 is like $160—and modern-day AJ1s are made from cheaper materials in factories staffed by cheaper workers. they don't HAVE to be $200 retail. but the secondary market nuked the whole concept of what sneakers are "worth"

You May Also Like