Daniel Miessler's Blog, page 76

Why Some People Get Sick From the Flu Shot

Cliche but mandatory disclaimer that I’m not a doctor.

It seems that there are two main thinking camps when it comes to the flu shot.

Either you believe that the flu shot absolutely causes the flu and you should never take it, or…
You believe it’s actually impossible to get the flu from the flu shot, and that anyone who disagrees probably also thinks the flat earth climate changed on 9/11.

As it turns out, the truth is more nuanced but still very simple.

Keep in mind that one doctor does not make data.

I already mentioned I’m not a medical professional, but I just asked my doctor today about what I’m about to tell you, and he 100% agreed. You should do the same with your doctor.

Anyway, it all comes down to a few points:

The flu shot doesn’t contain live virus so it’s not capable of actually giving you the flu.
The shot works by stimulating the immune system, so when someone gets it there’s an immune response that can actually make you feel sick for a bit—unrelated to the actual flu.
Just because of the numbers at play, there are also times when people were already about to get the flu—or already had it and didn’t yet have the symptoms—and then they get the flu shot and come down with it shortly after.

Think about those three things, and how they combine in situations where hundreds of thousands of people are getting sick, getting the vaccine, and getting the flu.

Given those numbers, there’s simply no question that many, many people have gotten the flu right after getting the vaccine. Period. It’s just a matter of probability and coincidence.

Think about it:

Tons of people at any moment are about to get the flu, and there’s nothing that can be done to stop it.
Some percentage of those people are also going to get the shot right before they start showing symptoms.
Therefore, many people will get the flu right after they get the shot.

Does that mean the shot caused the flu? No.

Plus, there’s a whole other set of people who feel like crap, i.e., sick, for a day or so after getting the shot—purely because it’s a kick in the shins to your immune system.

Some of those people get the flu right after (because they were already going to get it anyway), and some get better immediately and develop the resistance to flu.

Ok, so…where does that leave us?

The flu shot can’t directly give you flu because it doesn’t use live virus.
The shot can make you feel bad, however, because your immune system is under temporary load after you get it.
Some people who take the flu shot were about to get it anyway, and since it takes a couple weeks for immunity to build up, there was no time for the shot to protect you.

This simple set of three facts explains pretty much every situation I’ve heard being debated on social media about the flu vaccine.

It explains people who’ve felt bad afterwards (including me), it includes the people who’ve gotten the flu right after taking it (surely quite a few), and explains the data showing the shot absolutely helps overall.

It also explains all these things in a way that acknowledges people who’ve actually gotten sick from shot, or even gotten the flu after it, rather than dismissing them as crazy.

Remember, people do actually die from wearing seatbelts sometimes. But that fact does not counter the data on the benefits of seatbelts.

Summary

So, my advice (as your non-doctor) is very simple:

Get a flu shot. Seriously.
Try to get it when you’re healthy in order to avoid additional load to your immune system.

It’s that simple.

Don’t wait until everyone around you has the flu and you’re starting to feel bad.

Because if you do, you might actually get the flu right after—because you were going to anyway—and then you’ll be another person the internet talking about how the flu shot gave you the flu.

Don’t be that person.

Notes


I saw a funny joke about this topic on Reddit the other day. Someone said they got the flu from the flu shot and a commenter said, “Well sounds like you got the flu shot instead of the flu vaccine shot!”. That was funny.
I’ve gotten sick from a flu shot a couple of times, but I’ve never gotten the flu from it. It was just a couple of days of blah—-as if someone kicked my immune system in the solar plexus.
This piece here is an exercise in logic, and I encourage you to take it to as many doctor friends you can find. I’m curious what they think of it. I’ve only asked a few, but they said this was fully in agreement with both their training and their experience in the field.

—

If you like my content, you can support it directly for less than a latte a month ($50/year) which also gets you the Unsupervised Learning podcast and newsletter every week instead of just twice a month.

Summary: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism

10/10

My One-Sentence Summary
Content Extraction
Takeaways

My book summaries are designed as captures for what I’ve read, and aren’t necessarily great standalone resources for those who have not read the book.

Their purpose is to ensure that I capture what I learn from any given text, so as to avoid realizing years later that I have no idea what it was about or how I benefited from it.

My One-Sentence Summary

This is the best book on privacy that I’ve ever read because it actually describes both the programs that are removing it and the likely, big-picture outcomes once that’s happened.

Content Extraction

Surveillance Capitalism is a malignant type of capitalism based on gathering all information possible from users and using it to control behavior
It comes from a very old idea regarding shaping human behavior to become more predictable and stable (which they consider to be a good thing)
Google is called out as the main threat to privacy and the main advocate of Surveillance Capitalism, and she (the author) gives example after example, including Search, GMail, and PokemonGO
She pioneers the term, “Instrumentarianism”, which is the practice of manufacturing control over the population (my capture of it)
The earlier chapters of the book are about the specific programs that various tech companies—espeically Google—have for tracking users, and what they do with that information
She then gets into why they might want to be doing that, and ties it to the early work about population control
She paints a very direct picture there, basically saying that they’re (Google, Facebook, and increasingly Amazon) part of a conspiracy to create this highly-predictable future world where it’s possible to control the behavior of populations because you know everything about them and you control the inputs into their attention
She links this work to BF Skinner and some early Google founders who were fans of his work
I personally found the link and accusation to be a bit strong because I don’t think we have enough information to assign intention—especially since one could build the exact same system only chasing profits. So I think she went a bit far in places with her assumptions about intent, but she could absolutely be correct. I just don’t think we have enough information to say for sure
Either way, the picture she paints is powerful and important—even if she’s wrong about the conspiracy bit
The end of the book was spectacular because it goes into the questions we need to be asking ourselves as humans as we build our societies. Do we want to limit freedom and spontaneity to gain stability? What does it mean to be free if you’re being controlled? Etc. It’s almost like it’s 2-3 books in one.

Takeaways

This is the way privacy books should be written, both explaining the mechanisms but also the long-term negative effects
This is my #1 book recommendation for the topic of privacy
The philosophy bits at the end are extraordinary

You can find my other book summaries here.

Notes



One of my only 10/10 reviews.

—

If you like my content, you can support it directly for less than a latte a month ($50/year) which also gets you the Unsupervised Learning podcast and newsletter every week instead of just twice a month.

So You Want to Start a Blog…

I am often asked the best way to start a blog. My answer hasn’t varied much over the years, so I’m finally going to capture my answer as a series of concise admonitions.

I started this website in 1999, which, at the time of writing, makes 20 years blogging. In that time I’ve probably used every major blog platform that’s existed, which I’d guess has been no less than 20. I’ve done everything from pure HTML, Ruby, Node, Python, self-hosting, multiple third-party providers, all the way to my current setup.

Anyway, all that means is I’ve made lots of mistakes in these last two decades. And they’re mistakes that I can hopefully keep you from repeating.

First principles

No matter what you do, pay attention to these.

1. Your domain is your identity; pick it carefully

You need to decide if it’s a site about you, or a site about something specific and temporary.

I mostly recommend firstnamelastname.com, like this site because it gives you maximum freedom to explore stuff you care about. But if you have a specific project that you expect to have for at least 70 years, feel free to use something different. Err on the side of being too broad with your domain rather than too narrow.

Domain name changes are damaging to site reputation, so try to avoid them.

You don’t want to start a blog at 25 called blackberrytips.com, find out in 15 years that you’re actually into Buddhism, and end up writing about meditation on a domain with Blackberry in the name.

2. Use a solid domain registrar, like Google or Cloudflare

Be sure to lock these down with two-factor authentication.

I personally would stay away from groups that talk about how cheap they are, or who use other silly advertising to get you to sign up. Again, your domain is everything, so protect it.

Protect your domain’s DNS the same way, and consider using your domain provider as your DNS host as well.

3. Your URL Structure Matters a Lot

Spend a lot of time in the very beginning thinking about the structure of your site and the structure of your URLs. In general you want as few / slashes as possible in a URL, and I don’t recommend using the date as your leading structure.

Ideally you want maybe one level deep (like /blog, /articles, /research, etc), followed by 3-5 primary words that describe the post, e.g., /blog/so-you-want-start-blog. That’s what makes it easiest for Google to read your content.

What to Avoid (Don’ts)

These are the things to avoid.

Avoid Third-party Blogging Platforms

Every few years a new blogging platform comes along that is the slickest looking thing around. Blogger, Tumblr, Medium, Squarespace, etc—they all promise the world and end up going out of business eventually. Or worse, they sell out due to financial hardship or greed.

Either way you’re left doing a migration that takes tons of time and probably messes your site up in the process. Don’t use them.

What to do (Do’s)

Use Common and Popular Software

That doesn’t mean it has to be number one, but don’t pick number nine either. Going with one of the top 2 or 3 options means your platform will have maximum scrutiny and therefore faster patching if something goes wrong.

It also means it’s likely to last for a very long time.

Pick Software Without Lock-in

Make sure you pick a software package that has incentives that are truly aligned with independent content publishing. This is why you want to avoid the platforms mentioned above: they always (eventually) will try to do things in non-standard ways, make it difficult to migrate away from them, and/or will store your content in a proprietary format that doesn’t export well.

If You’re Not Technical, Consider Using a Service

It’s not a problem to use a hosted blogging service, you just want to make sure that it’s a pure one.

That means that it’s clean hosting of one of the software options above that’s popular and that doesn’t lock you in—as opposed to their own software on their own platform that doesn’ really export well.

Summary

Ok, so since I’ve just given advice so far, here’s my tangible recommendation.

Get your domain from Google or Cloudflare.
Get your DNS from them too.
Lock them down with 2FA.
Either build yourself a VPS or find a host for your blog.
If you’re self-hosting, I recommend AWS.
If you’re using a service I recommend FlyWheel or Pantheon.
For the blogging software itself, I recommend WordPress, Hugo, or Host—in that order.
Make sure you (or your provider) keeps your entire stack updated regularly.
The primary thing that will make your blog popular is consistent creation of content that’s at least 1,000 words in length. Everything else is highly secondary.
Don’t overthink it. Focus on the writing, not on the tech.

—

If you like my content, you can support it directly for less than a latte a month ($50/year) which also gets you the Unsupervised Learning podcast and newsletter every week instead of just twice a month.

So You Want to Start a Blog

I am often asked the best way to start a blog. My answer hasn’t varied much over the years, so I’m finally going to capture my answer as a series of concise admonitions.

I started this website in 1999, which, at the time of writing, makes 20 years blogging. In that time I’ve probably used every major blog platform that’s existed, which I’d guess has been no less than 20. I’ve done everything from pure HTML, Ruby, Node, Python, self-hosting, multiple third-party providers, all the way to my current setup.

Anyway, all that means is I’ve made lots of mistakes in these last two decades. And they’re mistakes that I can hopefully keep you from repeating.

First principles

No matter what you do, pay attention to these.

1. Your domain is your identity; pick it carefully

You need to decide if it’s a site about you, or a site about something specific and temporary.

I mostly recommend firstnamelastname.com, like this site because it gives you maximum freedom to explore stuff you care about. But if you have a specific project that you expect to have for at least 70 years, feel free to use something different. Err on the side of being too broad with your domain rather than too narrow.

Domain name changes are damaging to site reputation, so try to avoid them.

You don’t want to start a blog at 25 called blackberrytips.com, find out in 15 years that you’re actually into Buddhism, and end up writing about meditation on a domain with Blackberry in the name.

2. Use a solid domain registrar, like Google or Cloudflare

Be sure to lock these down with two-factor authentication.

I personally would stay away from groups that talk about how cheap they are, or who use other silly advertising to get you to sign up. Again, your domain is everything, so protect it.

Protect your domain’s DNS the same way, and consider using your domain provider as your DNS host as well.

3. Your URL Structure Matters a Lot

Spend a lot of time in the very beginning thinking about the structure of your site and the structure of your URLs. In general you want as few / slashes as possible in a URL, and I don’t recommend using the date as your leading structure.

Ideally you want maybe one level deep (like /blog, /articles, /research, etc), followed by 3-5 primary words that describe the post, e.g., /blog/so-you-want-start-blog. That’s what makes it easiest for Google to read your content.

What to Avoid (Don’ts)

These are the things to avoid.

Avoid Third-party Blogging Platforms

Every few years a new blogging platform comes along that is the slickest looking thing around. Blogger, Tumblr, Medium, Squarespace, etc—they all promise the world and end up going out of business eventually. Or worse, they sell out due to financial hardship or greed.

Either way you’re left doing a migration that takes tons of time and probably messes your site up in the process. Don’t use them.

What to do (Do’s)

Use Common and Popular Software

That doesn’t mean it has to be number one, but don’t pick number nine either. Going with one of the top 2 or 3 options means your platform will have maximum scrutiny and therefore faster patching if something goes wrong.

It also means it’s likely to last for a very long time.

Pick Software Without Lock-in

Make sure you pick a software package that has incentives that are truly aligned with independent content publishing. This is why you want to avoid the platforms mentioned above: they always (eventually) will try to do things in non-standard ways, make it difficult to migrate away from them, and/or will store your content in a proprietary format that doesn’t export well.

If You’re Not Technical, Consider Using a Service

It’s not a problem to use a hosted blogging service, you just want to make sure that it’s a pure one.

That means that it’s clean hosting of one of the software options above that’s popular and that doesn’t lock you in—as opposed to their own software on their own platform that doesn’ really export well.

Summary

Ok, so since I’ve just given advice so far, here’s my tangible recommendation.

Get your domain from Google or Cloudflare.
Get your DNS from them too.
Lock them down with 2FA.
Either build yourself a VPS or find a host for your blog.
If you’re self-hosting, I recommend AWS.
If you’re using a service I recommend FlyWheel or Pantheon.
For the blogging software itself, I recommend WordPress, Hugo, or Host—in that order.
Make sure you (or your provider) keeps your entire stack updated regularly.
The primary thing that will make your blog popular is consistent creation of content that’s at least 1,000 words in length. Everything else is highly secondary.
Don’t overthink it. Focus on the writing, not on the tech.

—

If you like my content, you can support it directly for less than a latte a month ($50/year) which also gets you the Unsupervised Learning podcast and newsletter every week instead of just twice a month.

Unsupervised Learning: No. 201

.errordiv { padding:10px; margin:10px; border: 1px solid #555555;color: #000000;background-color: #f8f8f8; width:500px; }#advanced_iframe {visibility:visible;opacity:1;}#ai-layer-div-advanced_iframe p {height:100%;margin:0;padding:0}

—

If you like my content, you can support it directly for less than a latte a month ($50/year) which also gets you the Unsupervised Learning podcast and newsletter every week instead of just twice a month.

How Many Major Companies Have Lost Their Leadership Position Due to a Breach?

I was just thinking about the biggest breaches we’ve had in history, from companies like Adobe, LinkedIn, Equifax, Marriott, Target, etc., and wondering how badly they’ve been affected long-term.

Stock price doesn’t tell the full story of whether something impacted a company.

I’m wondering one specific thing about these top companies with the biggest breaches: What percentage of companies that were top-three in their industry, were dropped out of their top-three spot as a result of their incident?

Here’s the list I’m looking at, which may not be perfect.

I removed Yahoo and eBay because they were dying due to market forces unrelated to security breaches, and OPM because it’s part of the government.

Adobe
LinkedIn
Equifax
Home Depot
Target
Marriott

By my count, every single one of these companies has maintained its industry-leader position years after the incident. So the answer to the question of “what percentage lost their leadership position?” seems to be a big fat:

0%

None. Out of these six—and I’m sure I’m forgetting some—they’ve all maintained their dominant position as if nothing ever happened.

There are of course many smaller companies—and especially startups—that had a bad incident early on and went out of business because of it. But that seems to be a case of chasing away investors more than the stock market or customers.

It’s just interesting to me that Adobe is still the market leader. Marriott is winning at the hotel Game of Thrones more than ever. Equifax is annoyed, I’m sure, but their position as an industry leader hasn’t been shaken as far as I can tell.

Target? Still #2 to Walmart in that space. Home Depot? Yep, still doing their thing and either #1 or #2. LinkedIn is just fine as well.

So what?

So why did I bother to notice this, or point it out?

It just seems really interesting to me that for top-N industry leaders, both stock price and competitive position seem immune in the long-term to even the largest breaches that we’ve seen.

That doesn’t mean it doesn’t cost them money. And effort. And the opportunity cost. So it’s not pleasant or desirable or cheap for this to happen.

But it also doesn’t seem to be an existential risk for top companies, which is a belief that many people still hold.

I think lots of CEOs and CISOs and security teams proceed every day under the assumption that a big breach could be the end of their entire company. And maybe that’s best. Maybe people become good at their jobs—regardless of what it is—by convincing themselves that it’s more important than the reality.

But I can’t help but be intrigued by disconnects like this, where the general opinion among practitioners is divorced from the actual case.

Curious what others think—both about my assessment of infosec’s collective opinion on the existential threat, and about the overall analysis of how much mega-breaches affect mega-companies.

—

If you like my content, you can support it directly for less than a latte a month ($50/year) which also gets you the Unsupervised Learning podcast and newsletter every week instead of just twice a month.

We’re Seeking Approval From Too Many People

The United States is less happy and more depressed than it’s been in a long time, and people are trying to figure out why.

The World Happiness Report shows us down for 3 years in a row, and we’re currently holding only the #19 spot in the world.

Many point immediately to personal mobile devices and social media, but I had an idea earlier tonight that I thought was worth capturing.

What if we’re less happy because the people we’re trying to please have changed?

Being a student of evolutionary psychology, I firmly believe that happiness is all about pleasing evolution. Or, more specifically, convincing evolution that we’re winning, which tells our body to send us happiness signals.

So the question is, what do you have to do today—vs. decades or centuries ago—to convince evolution that you’re winning?

I the US in like 1950 or so, one basically had to please your God, your family, and maybe your boss (who made up a distant third, if that). With religion you know you’re imperfect already, so you’re just striving to be a little better every day. And with your family, you’re trying to do be a good parent, spouse, etc.

This doesn’t take into account the many who were struggling with oppression and survival still.

For many it was a relatively stable situation. And if you go back even further the number of people who you had to impress shrinks even further.

Feedback times

In addition to the number of people one has to worry about getting signals of winning from, there’s also the factor of update cycles, i.e., how often are you getting new or widely changing signals from those that determine if you’re winning?

How often do you get changing signals from God about how you’re doing? From your family. From your close friends. Or from the community—which back in the day was just the local people in the town.

People have always had wins and losses on all those fronts on a regular basis, and sometimes you’re more popular or less popular with your kids or spouse or church. But in general, I don’t think one’s overall reputation among those groups changed too drastically, or too often.

I think it has to do with how often you put yourself out there to be judged, like a performer. If you’re a church pastor and a new pastor takes your flock, that’s a strong signal of denial and loss. But if you’re one of the flock you’re not broadcasting much, and thus don’t have as many opportunities to be rejected.

Social media makes people performers to the world

So it could be that the reason depression and suicide are rising so quickly is that the number of people we’re trying to please is rising, combined with the exponential growth in the opportunities to either be cheered or ostracised.

Social media is like vanilla extract, but for life.

These two things combine to massively speed up (and exaggerate) the messages to evolution that we’re either winning or losing at life.

Imagine that you’re a basic housewife or merchant living in the United States in the 1950s, and that you live in a small town in Missouri. You have a spouse, two kids, and a house that looks a lot like the others around it. Everyone goes to the same Church.

Occasionally you get a promotion or a demotion, or you have a new kid, or you start playing an instrument at the church. And these things do change how your family, and the church, and the people at work see you—but only very slightly.

Over time, you’re just you, and the amount of rank and popularity shift you experience in life is relatively small and gradual, when it does happen.

Compare that to someone today, living in a big city or a small town. You’re a stay-at-home parent, or you work at a local business, but you don’t really go to church.

You have a few local friends but you mostly talk to them online, along with the other hundreds of people you have collected from high school to your mid-thirties.

Your main activity is using social media. You’re constantly posting pictures of your food, or your kids, or the vacation you’re going to go on. And you’re constantly watching which of your hundreds of friends are liking which pictures. And how much they like them compared to how much they like other peoples’ content.

When you post lots of stuff, and like lots of stuff, and then take a break to do something at work, or with the kids, your brain can’t wait to get back on Facebook to see how you did. Turns out, you only got a couple of likes for the picture of your kid’s birthday, but the girls you hung out with the week before gave over a hundred likes to another mother who posted pics of her kid at the same time. Why do they like her more?

You suddenly feel a sense of loss and dread and rejection like nothing else.

Why?

Because evolution is constantly looking for signals that you’re winning or losing, and it sits ready to punish you or reward you accordingly.

Evolution is tirelessly keeping score.

If you put out all those story shares, and cute little posts, and likes of other people’s content—those just got entered into the Evolutionary Ledger as pings of success. And evolution listens closely to whether those pings come back or not.

When they do, you get a rush. You’re winning! And you just programmed your hopeless built-thousands-of-years-ago brain to immediately repeat those pings out to the world so you can get another rush.

Every time you pick up your phone and check social media, that’s what you’re doing. You’re checking to see if those pings came back—hoping for replies.

When they don’t come back—and you hear silence instead—you can feel Evolution staring at you disapprovingly. And the failure burns through you.

A simple solution

The great news is that this model—if it’s at least somewhat accurate—admits immediately of a solution: reduce the number and frequency of pings for approval. And when you do ask for them, make sure you’re asking groups that are stable, trusted, and that you actually care about.

Family, close friends (that you actually visit in person or talk to on the phone), and cherished colleagues.

People like that are 1) more likely to give you generally positive feedback, and 2) the feedback is likely to be quite stable and predictable. When you talk to your spouse or your best three friends, they’re not likely to tell you that they hate you one day, and tell you they love you the next. Whereas the internet will absolutely do that.

The easiest solution is to just massively reduce your number of success beacons you’re sending out in hopes of replies. That means largely getting off of social media, and my first recommendation there is to abandon Facebook.

Give evolution fewer inputs to track.

Second, take a very serious look at who you care about in life, i.e., who you should care about, and limit your pings just to them as much as possible. That means spending more time working on your own projects instead of worrying about what everyone on the internet is doing, and spending quality time with the people you care about.

In short, massively reduce your circle by cutting out the internet from your friend group. The internet is not a friend—it’s an amorphous blob that can either sprinkle pixie dust or depression on your life. Don’t treat it like a spouse or friend that you need the approval of.

And finally, if you are someone who creates things and shares them, do so in a healthy way. What does that mean? It means putting things out there without attaching a success ping to them, so that Evolution isn’t listening over your shoulder for a response.

Establish your goals as self-betterment, the love of your family, the love of your friends, and the improvement of the world. And then go about your craft—whatever that is.

When you make something, like a blog post about Evolution Success Pings for example, just put it out there and move on to the next thing. Consider all the work to be done—regardless of whether nobody notices or you get some great vibes.

Evolution’s hardware and firmware

What studying Evolutionary Biology has taught me is how much our bodies—and therefore brains and minds—are fish out of water. We weren’t built for modern society. We’re GEICO commercial neanderthals walking around in the world of Star Trek, and we’re doing a bad job of it.

Using a computer/hacking metaphor, Evolution is the very old firmware running on our brains, and we’re trying to run modern society software on top.

It’s not working.

That’s why I study this stuff. So I can see how bad our hardware, firmware, and software is. So I can hack it. And that’s precisely what this is—this recommendation to reduce your group size and the number of success pings. It’s a hack for the bad code running on all our brains right now.

Let me be even more direct.

Evolution is our bad firmware, and it’s tuned for signals of success and failure coming from our environment, which it then rewards with bliss or depression. In older societies, this worked fine because our groups were small and those inputs didn’t change often or vary that much.

Now that’s different.

Social Media is malware that’s been developed to massively increase the number and frequency of your success pings (seeking of approval), and it’s designed to interact directly with your firmware (Evolution), which in turn affects your hardware (mood, energy, hormones).

Everything you see, hear, and read is code running on your brain, and social media is malware.

It’s code designed to compel you to do things. To click things. To like things. To share things. And it works because it has a direct line to your firmware/hardware.

This is why everyone’s comparing social media to a drug, along with the requisite addiction metaphors. It’s because both social media and drugs are hacks that affect our underlying hardware.

That’s all fine. That’s the beauty of hacking: once you know how a system works, you can change the inputs to get what you want.

And in our case, that means controlling the code running on our firmware/hardware. Now that we know our tech stack is extremely vulnerable to this type of malware, the answer is simply to avoid it.

Summary


Drop Facebook as much as possible given family requirements.
If you post to Twitter/Instagram, do so without caring about the response.
Focus on your own projects, and use social media to syndicate, not to seek approval.
Use social media to find and interact with other like-minded creators/thinkers, not trolls.
Reconnect with your inner circle of family and friends, and spend time with them and talk to them via voice/video.

In short, ask yourself what projects and efforts you really care about, and focus on those things knowing that the only approval you really need is from your close friends, your family, and the small group of wonderful people you meet when sharing your work with the world.

The internet is not your friend, so stop treating it like one.

—

If you like my content, you can support it directly for less than a latte a month ($50/year) which also gets you the Unsupervised Learning podcast and newsletter every week instead of just twice a month.

Unsupervised Learning: No. 200 (Member Edition)

This is a Member-only episode. Members get the newsletter every week, and have access to the Member Portal with all existing Member content.

Non-members get every other episode.

Sign in

or…

—

If you like my content, you can support it directly for less than a latte a month ($50/year) which also gets you the Unsupervised Learning podcast and newsletter every week instead of just twice a month.

Unsupervised Learning: No. 199

.errordiv { padding:10px; margin:10px; border: 1px solid #555555;color: #000000;background-color: #f8f8f8; width:500px; }#advanced_iframe {visibility:visible;opacity:1;}#ai-layer-div-advanced_iframe p {height:100%;margin:0;padding:0}

—

If you like my content, you can support it directly for less than a latte a month ($50/year) which also gets you the Unsupervised Learning podcast and newsletter every week instead of just twice a month.

Unsupervised Learning: No. 198 (Member Edition)

This is a Member-only episode. Members get the newsletter every week, and have access to the Member Portal with all existing Member content.

Non-members get every other episode.

Sign in

or…

—

If you like my content, you can support it directly for less than a latte a month ($50/year) which also gets you the Unsupervised Learning podcast and newsletter every week instead of just twice a month.