Memory: when we were teenagers my dad taught a course in England & brought us along (me & my twin). Afterwards, we visited dad’s beloved friend Renzo in Italy. At the end of the trip, we got a lift to the airport for the 26 hour flight back to Aus. As we left, Renzo handed us 🧵 a massive wedge of Parmigiano Reggiano. It had to have been 750g to a kilo of cheese. So much cheese even if it weren’t the kind of cheese you only sprinkle. Dad solemnly took this gift and put it in his backpack, and we bid Renzo farewell, checked our bags and went to the plane.

So here’s a thing I think. As a society, we carve out ‘outside’ or ‘safe’ spaces for old people, disabled people and babies (parents with babies). That distorts normal society in truly awful ways. 🧵 One of which is relevant to covid calculations. Because we have homes that are separated from the mainstream of life, we don’t see sick people or old people out & about - they’re not integrated into normal daily life. As a result, they become distanced; phased out of our lives.

I get asked what advice I’d give to kids, and I don’t know, but basic emotional skills I think kids should learn in schools are:

1.at some point, you’ll be in love with someone who doesn’t want you. Here’s some ways to deal with that gracefully. 2. at some point someone will be in love with you, who you don’t want. Here’s how you might cope with that humanely.
3.Sometimes someone will push your boundaries in a way that feels uncomfortable. Here’s how to express your discomfort.
4.Some ways to deescalate conflict.

The logic of commercial litigation is “do what you can get away with”. A senior partner once said, when I flagged a clause that was clearly not what the other side had asked for: “that’s for their lawyer to catch”. Fine, but we CAN’T have this adversarial model in government. Adversarial processes are wonderful for pushing progress; they engage human inventiveness in ways that sameness of thinking doesn’t. In a legal system, it’s a decent methodology. But for governing, adversarial attitudes have to bend to a shared interest in the good of the people.

Tips for men worried that they can’t tell if they’ve made a woman uncomfortable (THREAD): 1. never stand between a woman and the door - both literally and metaphorically. Indicate to your colleague, crush, friend, date etc. a clearly marked exit with lights along the floor. 1/? 1b. And not in a halfarsed way, not with implications that it’ll be really hurtful if she goes, not ironically or jokingly or rolling your eyes.
2.If you’re not sure whether she’s into you, it, the situation, assume she’s not, or ask straight up, with reference to point 1. 2/?

I would like to propose a tiered system of fonts; like pen licenses. So unqualified idiots can pretend they know what they’re talking about online, but they have to do it in comic sans. If it’s your area of training or expertise, you get times new roman. People with 10+ years of practical experience in the field get Helvetica Neue.

Whether something’s a joke or not almost always runs perpendicular to its moral vector. I’m frustrated with “but it’s funny” or “it’s not funny” as arguments on if X is cruel or offensive. That’s like arguing against “it’s too hot” with “but it’s liquid!”. You can have hot liquid ON THE OTHER HAND. A joke can demonstrate an abhorrent moral position, and that’s the joke. This is a way of playing with/demonstrating the boundaries of acceptability. Saying an outrageous thing that ‘we’ all know is awful BECAUSE we all know it’s awful is an in-group signal.

Because #Savage is coming out on @PrimeVideo on the 17th of April, I will celebrate with a thread of some behind the scenes facts: 1/
There’s a very mild joke about Tom Cruise running around corners that Legals flagged, asking me if I’d like to change the name in case of litigation. I said I’d keep it in because if I’m just mentioning the fact that a man has run around some corners, it’s not quite a joke.