Longreads
- Tyler Cowen interviews Stephen Kotkin on Stalin, Siberia, Foucault, and more. A very fun one. It's always interesting to look under the hood at how the nation-building process works, i.e. how Bavarians and Prussians or Bretons and Provençals all ended up being part of the same political entity, speaking mostly the same language, etc. In some Eastern parts of Russia, it turns out that one of the odd-one-out groups is Buddhists! There are also great thoughts on writing history, specifically the trap of writing about someone based on sources that were written later in their life. As he points out, many of Stalin's contemporaries thought he was unusually dedicated and effective, and thus indispensable to the cause, and Stalin had many of these same people executed. So reading about Stalin after the purges makes it hard to understand why he got as far as he did beforehand.
- Santi Ruiz interviews Edward Luttwak, who literally wrote the book on coups, on the topic of coups (of course), CIA blunders, and why he (Luttwak) advocates unrestricted submarine warfare against cruise ships. Luttwak is a very entertaining character of a type more common in earlier centuries: intellectual/adventurer who is often annoying to people in power but sometimes indispensable to them. (Like some such adventurers, he has a bit of an ego; he turned down a job working under Reagan because he felt that $400k, Reagan's salary, was an appropriate level of compensation. The beauty of these stories, of course, is that it's easy to confirm details like "the federal government wasn't paying on-the-books employees that much money," and hard to confirm the rest.) Luttwak also makes the claim that his book (reviewed long ago in The Diff), made coups less common by telling potential coup victims what their weak points were. And it's true that there was a burst of them just before and after he wrote the book, after which they got less common. They seem to be making a small comeback, though.
- In Wired, a fun digital caper story about using tiny cameras to watch cards as they're being dealt in order to cheat. A fun optimization problem is figuring out how to use some unique data edge in a way that doesn't reveal its existence; if you're lucky enough to find an advantage like this, legitimately or not, your next task is to ensure that your results look like ordinary luck. So the whole task is a sort of luck-laundering.
- Risk.net profiles trader Don Wilson. A very good case study in the model that the most successful specialists know a lot about things a few layers away from their specialty: if you're trying to predict the next tick or the next few minutes of trading, it's good to understand the mechanics of how trades happen, how they're settled, and how different products work. Sometimes this is just generally useful context, but occasionally it means being the one person who doesn't have to dig through lots of PDFs in the middle of a highly volatile period.
- A quick piece on the rise and fall of Ashton-Tate, once the fourth most popular software vendor on Windows and Mac. They made databases, which at the time turned out to be at the front lines of complaints about software that turned out to be downstream from hardware; the original product, a database, had some annoying limitations that forced users to frame their problem based on the constraints of the tool they used. But that was enough, for a while, to build a viable business. The piece also shows why software companies are a better business than they used to be: shipping a physical product with a version number means placing a succession of bigger and bigger bets; shipping incremental updates to something people access through their browser is safer, and customers’ complaints show up in usage numbers and bug reports before they start chipping away at retention numbers.
- In Capital Gains this week, a piece against decorative statistics, i.e. numbers that make an argument sound more compelling, but whose emotional impact wouldn't change much if they shifted by an order of magnitude. (In an instance of poetic justice, I made an editing error while writing this and replaced "millions" with "billions" in one example. The good news is that this would change the argument in question.)
- In this week's episode of The Riff: early Buffett investments, AI economics, why talking about passive strategies taking over investing gets less coherent as passive's share grows, and more. Listen with Spotify/Apple/YouTube.
Books
Alexander Hamilton:Hamilton was always a funny subject for a hip-hop musical treatment. On one hand, he had the kind of dramatic arc that lets someone tell a pretty incredible story without having to stretch the facts much. He really was born out of wedlock on an obscure island, really did write his way into prominence and end up playing a major role in the Revolutionary War and the early United States. And he also had the kind of entertainingly messy personal life that keeps the story interesting: one well-documented affair (documented, in fact, by Hamilton himself, in the late 18th century equivalent of posting a long Instagram story that consists of a series of Apple Notes screencaps), whispers of other possible affairs, close proximity to the country's first insider trading scandal, and lots of back-room political maneuvering. But also, Hamilton was deeply skeptical of the average person's ability to make good political decisions, and tended to defer to aristocracies of one kind or another; he married into a land-owning family, made substantial money as a lawyer defending the economic interests of loyalists after the war, personally participated in putting down tax revolts, and was generally more popular with merchants and manufacturers than with everyday Americans.
There are some rules of history that are broadly applicable across times and places, but that apply to predict the existence of, but not the nature of, N-of-1 figures. That rule is that as institutions get older, the path to the top is more determined by internal politics and luck than by raw skill. And as a corollary, when there's a major shift in those institutions, there are suddenly a lot of young people involved. In 1776, Hamilton was in his early twenties, as was Aaron Burr; James Madison was 25, John Jay was 30, Jefferson was 33. George Washington was part of the existing establishment, and was 44 at the outbreak of the war, but he immediately surrounded himself with young and energetic people, Hamilton among them. As a loyal British subject, Hamilton might have found ways to move up various ranks (and he'd already shown a talent for this; in his early teens he was briefly put in charge of a trading company while his boss sought medical treatment). But being aide-de-camp to the de facto leader of an almost-country is the kind of thing that happens a lot more when there's a revolution going on. Hamilton actually had a sense of this; five years before, he'd written in a letter to a friend that what he really needed for his career to take off was a war.
After the war, Hamilton spent a while as a lawyer, with a specialty in defending Tories. Many of the newly-independent colonies were all too happy to economically punish people who were loyal enough subjects to take the British side, but not so fiercely loyal that they left after losing. Hamilton was in the fortunate position where his moral belief in the sanctity of property rights intersected perfectly with his love of contrarian arguments and his practical interest in fees.
But principled, argumentative, ambitious people are not always content with torts. Hamilton played a major role in organizing the Constitutional Convention, and in shaping what that constitution would look like. And when it was settled, with a newly-empowered state and a chief executive who had legal and moral authority to act, Hamilton worked as the first treasury secretary, and designed a financial system complicated enough that his successors were afraid to mess it up.
As with many other history books, there are some things that just don't map to contemporary political realities—left and right can both see plenty to admire and plenty to disagree with in Hamilton's politics. But the overall narrative has all sorts of fun parallels to recent history. Not just the ongoing debate over how decentralized the country ought to be, and how to balance between the state, the private sector, and individual rights. But even down to very narrow details like a pandemic (the Yellow Fever outbreak of 1793) where there was a deep partisan divide about how to treat the disease, and plenty of rhetoric about how people were overreacting and surely weren't so wimpy as to be afraid of the sniffles.
Every biography runs into the problem that a human life doesn't fit into the same dramatic arc as a novel or a play. "And then they lived more or less happily ever after" can take up half the timespan in question, especially if the subject is notable partly for how early their achievements were. Hamilton doesn't quite have that problem, because he died in a duel in his forties, but even before that, his career and influence were in decline. So the story gets a bit more depressing even before the infamous duel.
Reading the book, it's striking how some cycles have actually returned to their late 18th-century level. Was there any time between now and then where pseudonymous writers had so much influence on political thought in the US? Very young people mostly aren't rising up the ranks in government, though there are a few of these like Lina Khan, but they are having a big impact in the private sector. Reading the book gives the sense that if Hamilton were brought to the present, bouncing between untangling gnarly cap tables for money and posting blistering Substack rants for fun, he'd feel right at home.
Open Thread
- Drop in any links or comments of interest to Diff readers.
- As an occasional reminder, The Diff has an AngelList syndicate and is scaling up its investments in very early companies. If you're building something interesting, please reach out!
Diff Jobs
Companies in the Diff network are actively looking for talent. See a sampling of current open roles below:
- An AI startup building regulatory agents to help automate compliance for companies in highly regulated industries is looking for account executives or consultants with direct experience selling into or working with large financial institutions (banks, asset managers, insurance companies). (NYC)
- Ex-Ramp founder and team are hiring a high energy full-stack engineer to help build the automation layer for the US healthcare payor-provider eco-system. (NYC)
- A company building the new pension of the 21st century and enabling universal basic capital is looking for a head of capital markets to help scale capital markets (debt and equity) efforts. Background in banking, hedge funds, or fintech, including embedded lending, preferred. (NYC)
- YC-backed AI company that’s turning body cam footage into complete police reports is looking for a tech lead/CTO who can build scalable backend systems and maintain best practices for the engineering org. (SF)
- A hyper-growth startup that’s turning customers’ sales and marketing data into revenue is looking for a product engineer with a track record of building, shipping, and owning customer delivery at high velocity. If you like to build, this role is for you. (NYC)
Even if you don't see an exact match for your skills and interests right now, we're happy to talk early so we can let you know if a good opportunity comes up.
If you’re at a company that's looking for talent, we should talk! Diff Jobs works with companies across fintech, hard tech, consumer software, enterprise software, and other areas—any company where finding unusually effective people is a top priority.