THE FUTURE OF NEWSLETTERS
(and announcing my new newsletter π)
Too much noise, too little content we actually use.
Take your favorite newsletter. Can you remember the contents of the edition-before-the-last-one?
Me neither. But I have a solution
(thread, 1/N)
2/ Today, I launch the RoamLetter.
A newsletter whose content directly integrates into your note-taking system.
A newsletter whose editions AUTOMATICALLY link with each other *and with your notes* π
A newsletter with built-in spaced repetition.
A timeless newsletter.
3/ If you are a Roam user, you'll enjoy how the topics of one edition of my newsletter automatically link with your body of knowledge, and the other way around.
If you are not a Roam user, no worries. You can still use all the other features of my newsletter (pics below)
4/ I write personally all the content of the newsletter.
So, you'll read what I'm known for.
Timeless content, comments on the principles ruling this world, complex systems, emergent behaviors, adaptive management, and much more.
5/ Every week, I will publish essays of mine, most of them exclusive to the newsletter, or present my comments on the essays of others (links to them + one-paragraph take-away of one key idea + my thoughts expanding and building upon them).
All categorized, for easier reference.
6/ Here is an example of what I mean by "building upon".
If you are familiar with my writing, you'll know that I don't regurgitate the works of others, but take away some principles and apply them to different contexts β or make novel hypotheses.
7/ Every week, also a section on the best quotes and thoughts I came across. Again, with my comments.
8/ Finally, a section on recent news β but never caring about the urgent, only about the important.
The aim is to highlight phenomena or principles that will still be relevant in a few decades.
9/ Moreover, the newsletter comes with spaced repetition. Every 3 months I will send you a recap of the most important concepts I've talked about during the last few editions.
No! There is an email-only version of the newsletter: luca-dellanna.com/premiumletter (which is distinct from my free "updates & occasional essay" newsletter)
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
MASKS WORK EVEN IF THE VIRUS IS SMALLER THAN THE HOLES IN THE FABRIC
As a first effect, the virus bounces on the fibers. That's enough to decrease the distance at which it "jumps out". It might even get some of the particles to stuck to the fibers.
(thread, 1/N)
2/ Second, N95 masks also have electrostatic charges that capture particles even if they are smaller than the holes in the fabric.
3/ Third, masks would work even if the virus passed fully through.
They reduce the distance at which it travels after, say, a sneeze. It's as if they introduced additional distance between people.
Moreover, they work both on the way out and on the way in.
6 million Italians should be in home quarantine, only a fraction of them because they tested positive. Most of them are there because tests are few and slow.
Another part of the problem is that enforcing the quarantine & working through the tests backlog is cheaper, easier, and more effective when there are few cases than when there are a lot,
But one would also need the will, capability, and wisdom to do so when it seems less urgent
1/ They don't fully protect you from virus in the air.
Yes, but their point is to prevent as much virus as possible from getting in the air in the first place.
(thread)
2/ There is this Randomized Control Trial I see posted on Twitter which allegedly shows that face masks do not work.
That trial shows that face masks do not protect doctors from patients *that do not wear face masks*.
Such studies do not demonstrate that face masks don't work.
3/ Paradoxically, the more you believe that someone wearing face masks is only partially protected, the more you should want everyone to wear them, so that there is less virus in the air.
In yesterday's tweet, I was critical of scientific institutions endorsing specific parties.
Here is an example of why.
There is no such thing as "the scientific party" or "the anti-scientific one" β not if by science we intend real science, rather than a politicized consensus.
IMHO there's too much focus on who governs the political structure and too little attention to whether:
- The structure is good
- It provides good incentives
- It filters bad members
- The downside of bad decisions is capped
- It provides longevity to the common good or to itself
(I don't live in the US and this was not intended to be a reflection on the US; I merely stumbled on the quoted thread and it made me think. Many other countries will find that, if they remove the words and look at the actions, "scientific parties" aren't that scientific at all.)