B05 perspective notes: how he thinks (2020-08-28 to 2021-02-25, 13 posts)#

All 13 posts were read in full. The earlier concept notes (working/maynard/notes/B05.md) were consulted only after that reading. Quotes were checked character by character against the corpus files and keep the source’s spelling and italics.

Provenance and key#

• All evidence is his own prose. There are no AI-generated sections, guest posts, co-written text or Modem Futura posts in this batch.
• Four posts reissue Films from the Future (FFTF, 2018). Each has a short 2020–21 framing note. FFTF page numbers come from working/maynard/book/FFTF-*.txt, whose page markers match the printed pages.
• Most of the non-excerpt posts were cross-posted from the ASU College of Global Futures Dean’s Blog. He was then Associate Dean for Student Success there.
• Six posts say so in a footer or header: 2020-10-04, 2020-10-30, 2020-11-12, 2020-12-15, 2021-01-15 and 2021-02-04.
• 2020-10-30 links to a Dean’s Blog copy of 2020-10-22, so that post appeared there too.
• Not his words:
• the TIGTech findings and “drivers of trust” in 2020-12-15;
• the videos in the AI playlist in 2020-11-12 (choosing and framing them was his work);
• the quoted researchers, Campos, England et al., and Muddy Waters.

The batch in one line. This is the hinge between his Risk Innovation Nexus / Films from the Future period and his “global futures” / Future Rising period. What the posts show is not a list of concepts. They show that for him, thinking about risk and thinking about the future are one activity: risk is how he names what we might lose in a future we care about, and navigation is how he describes moving toward that future without a reliable map.

1. How he thinks here#

He opens by unsettling the question itself, often with a light touch. - “What exactly is the future?” He adds that it’s “surprising how often we barrel ahead trying to build a better future without pausing to think about what it is” (2020-10-22 future-as-object). - “What, you might ask, have advanced brain machine interfaces got to do with global futures? / Quite a lot as it turns out!” (2020-10-15 ethics-of-BMI). - He admits the “admittedly click-baity title” of 2020-11-12 AI-kill-us-all and uses it to pivot away from the question it poses. - “What if we could go beyond digital technologies though…?” (2021-02-25 base-code).

In each case the opening question moves the reader off the obvious framing before any argument starts.

He reframes what a thing is. Many posts turn on a sentence that redefines the object: - “Tesla is not a car company, but a tech company committed to changing our future on their terms.” (2020-10-15). Neuralink is then read the same way, with “our brains and our minds” as the platform. - Vaccine hesitancy is recast from “irrational thinking” into a question of whether institutions are trustworthy (2020-12-15 trustworthiness). - AI risk is recast from existential to “far more mundane–but no less serious for this” (2020-11-12). - The historical “pivot point” is recast from climate or overpopulation to our mastery of “base code” (2021-02-25). - Risk is recast as a threat to value (2020-10-15).

He judges a technology by the reach of its promises, not by whether they come true. This is his most characteristic move in the batch. - He thinks Neuralink’s dreams are “pretty slim” to come true, then writes: “Yet this is not the point here.” What matters is that entrepreneurs are “in the process of reimagining what is possible”. In doing so they are “warping the pathway between where we are now, and the future we’re heading for” (2020-10-15). - The same move appears in 2020-08-28 navigating-BMI, where an “admittedly rather silly plotline” (Kennedy’s novel 2051) still “hit[s] on” the real issue of hackability (FFTF p.144). - He neither debunks nor boosts the hype. He asks what the hype is doing to the path we are on.

He uses plausibility as a tool, not a gate. - “Admittedly, some of these questions may lie beyond the realms of plausibility. But they do serve to highlight just how complex the ethical and governance landscape … is likely to become” (2020-10-15). - Implausible scenarios are kept because they light up the shape of a landscape, not because they predict it.

He reasons by structure, and traces lineages of ideas and motives. - 2020-09-26 seductive-slippery-slope runs a single “seductive” idea through phrenology, Lombroso, eugenics, face-based criminality studies, fMRI and machine-learning classifiers. fMRI is “the high-tech version of “looks like a criminal”” (FFTF p.73). The continuity is a motive, the wish to sort “good” people from “bad”, not a technology. - 2020-08-28 treats ICDs, the St Jude recall and the Internet of Things DDoS attacks as literal forerunners of the ownership problems neural implants will bring. - 2021-02-25 uses the operating system as its template: “bricking” the world, and “there’s not likely to be a re-install option if we get things wrong!”

He argues from first principles about how new the situation is. - Cyberspace is a human-made dimension, and merging with it means “living in a world that hasn’t had billions of years of natural selection for the kinks to be ironed out”, where “human-made monsters lie waiting for us to stumble on them” (2020-08-28; FFTF p.146). - Mastery of base code would be “a distinct break from our evolutionary heritage” (2021-02-25). - “Risk is inevitable in a universe where past “causes” connect in complex and often unpredictable ways with future “effects,”” (2020-11-05 risk-innovation).

He uses films as a backdrop for exploring, not as prophecy. - Minority Report uses “a fantastical plot device” yet provides “a rich backdrop against which to explore” (2020-09-26, 2020 framing). - Ghost in the Shell’s “ghost hacking” and Major Kusanagi’s leased body carry the question “who owns you?” (FFTF p.146). - In 2021-01-15 sci-fi-class, film is valued as a shared, felt experience. It is not valued as a forecast (see §4).

He holds tensions and never lets one side win outright. - “Not that I think this should be taken as an excuse not to build brain- machine interfaces”, paired with “Here be monsters” (2020-08-28; FFTF p.146). - Data-driven policing “makes a lot of sense”, and its benefits are real “(and they are many)”, yet it slides toward pre-justice (2020-09-26; FFTF p.83). - AI sits “on a knife edge” between incredible benefits and potential catastrophe (2020-11-12). - The future is a soap bubble, “full of wonder and promise, but at the same time, in need of care if it’s to survive and thrive” (2020-10-22).

He argues with himself on the page. - 2021-02-25 opens by pre-empting its own critic: “generational exceptionalism rarely stands the test of time. Yet despite this, I believe…”. - Its coda walks the claim back: “This, of course, is an oversimplification.” Then “Of course, I’m being a little hubristic here”. - Then it goes further than before: “maybe we need to extend the concept to social norms and trends, behaviors, and even ideas.”

The self-correction is part of how the thinking moves forward. It is not a disclaimer.

Curiosity, play and serendipity drive the process. The Future Rising posts (2020-10-22, 2020-10-30 eight-things), which the earlier notes rated “low” and “none”, show his working method most clearly: - The founding idea came from a colleague’s chance question. He “initially thought the idea was a little crazy”, but “the more I mulled it over” it opened things up. It then “formed a scaffold for what emerged rather than being central to the book” and was “eventually abandoned as more interesting ideas emerged”. An idea is a scaffold, used and then let go. - He borrowed the form from Summer Brennan’s High Heel (an object book), and made the book “intentionally divided into sixty chapters as a metaphor for the passage of time”. - He pitched a TEDx talk of sixty images in ten minutes: “It was a stupid idea, and one that was destined to crash and burn”. But it produced a gallery he wants to use one day. - He self-recorded an hour of the book to win a blurb, and didn’t get it. - In 2021-01-15 COVID’s forced move online produced things “we simply wouldn’t have thought of”, and he is “kid-in-a-candy-store excited” about a new platform. - In 2021-02-04 future-you he bought a friend’s self-help book partly because “I was more than a little curious to see what he’d actually written!”

He stretches a concept past where it is comfortable. - Base code is stretched to norms and ideas (2021-02-25). - The risk innovation mindset goes “not just for entrepreneurs, but for anyone striving to build a better future” (2020-11-05). - TIGTech’s trust findings are carried to science communication, DEI and universities (2020-12-15).

2. What matters to him#

Identity, agency and the self. - The hardest question in 2020-08-28 is “who owns you?”. Implant makers “may not own the hardware, but without a doubt, they own you, or at least your health and security” (FFTF p.151). The post ends asking whether anyone will “pay attention before we’re plunged into an existential crisis around who we are, and who owns us?” (FFTF p.152). - Prediction of “bad” behaviour is wrong partly because it assumes “other people do not have agency over their destiny” (2020-09-26; FFTF p.72). - He insists “There will always be an element of chance and choice that determines our actions.” (FFTF p.76). - When he defines value for risk innovation, he names “equity, agency, and a sense of self” (2020-10-15).

Justice, meaning futures that are not stolen from others. - “we are still remarkably adept at preventing all too many people from reaching the futures they aspire to” (2020-12-10 rethink-relationship). - AI should benefit people “for everyone, not just a privileged few” (2020-11-12). - Predictive policing risks targeting “black, brown, and poor” communities (quoting the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition, which he chose to foreground). - His example of law encoding norms rather than morality is the UK’s criminalisation of homosexuality until 1967 (FFTF p.72).

A relationship with the future that involves responsibility and care. - 2020-12-10 frames 2020 as a strained relationship that risks “a catastrophic breakup that will ultimately serve no-one”, and calls for “Closing the Gap between Ability and Responsibility”. - The bar is “better than the past, and not just one that’s different” (2020-11-12).

Hope, grounded rather than cheerful. “it’s easy to lose hope. Yet the immediate crises we’re facing will pass.” He looks for “Threads of Hope” in “our eccentricities and irrationalities, and our ability to see and feel the world through the eyes of others” (2020-12-10). He locates the source of our ability to build futures in our flawed humanity, not in technology.

Trust that is earned, and humility. He values trust as work done by institutions: “It takes awareness, empathy and humility, and a willingness to embrace the messiness of being human” (2020-12-15).

What frustrates him: - Hype. The fMRI study threw “headline writers into a clickbait frenzy” (FFTF p.69). - Pseudoscience wearing science’s authority, and “What is heartbreaking” is that academics lent it momentum (FFTF p.70). - Treating science as pure. He calls out “the misapprehension that the scientific method is pure and unbiased” (FFTF p.75). - Narrow expert lanes. Medical neuroethics is “confined to a rather narrow lane”, and some experts claim “there’s nothing really new here” (2020-10-15). - Building before asking. Early computing cared about what we “could do rather than what we should” (FFTF p.145). - Box-ticking, and learning treated as if it is “only worth it if there’s pain involved” (2021-01-15). - “smarmy self-assuredness” (2021-02-04).

What delights him: - students’ “metaphorical lightbulbs”; - the class that is “possibly my favorite class to teach”; - documents “written in plain language”; - a colleague’s odd idea turning out to be generative; - the soap bubble; - “This is quite incredible science” about fMRI (FFTF p.74), even while he criticises how it is used. His delight in the science itself survives his criticism of it.

3. Risk as a way of thinking#

The core statement (2020-11-05 risk-innovation). - “our outmoded ideas about risk actually become a risk in themselves and threaten the future we aspire to.” - This is the clearest statement in the batch of his claim that new conditions need a new mindset about risk. The section heading is “Developing a Risk Innovation Mindset”, and it applies “not just for entrepreneurs, but for anyone striving to build a better future.” - The tools (a planner, activity guides, all “freely available”) are the way in. The mindset is the aim. - Risk is relational from the start: “every action we take leads to reactions that are detrimental to someone in some way”. Risk is always a question of whose value is threatened.

Risk as a threat to value, and orphan risks (2020-10-15). - Risk innovation is “very simply using the concept of risk as a threat to value to help navigate an increasingly complex landscape between entrepreneurial dreams and aspirations, and their economically viable and socially responsible realization.” - Value is defined “very broadly”: “not just to the enterprise in question, but to their investors, consumers and the communities they touch”, including “a sense of self”. - Orphan risks are “hard to quantify threats to value that often slip between the cracks of conventional risk approaches”. In 2020-11-05 they are “those hard to quantify and easy to ignore risks that nevertheless have a habit of coming back to bite.”

They work as mental models more than as operating procedures. Three pieces of evidence: 1. He offers risk innovation to the National Academies modestly: it “may be useful as part of a broader exploration of innovative approaches”. It is one lens, not the method. 2. He admits the 2019 Neuralink analysis rested on a “somewhat naïve” assumption, yet “the exercise still provides a useful indication of how we as a society might need to start thinking more broadly”. Its value lay in widening thought, not in getting the prediction right. 3. The 2020 origin story says entrepreneurs “needed a completely new risk toolkit” for “emerging and hard to grapple with risks — many of them social and political in nature” (2020-11-05). The toolkit exists because the old categories could not see these risks.

The same cracks. - He describes Silicon Valley entrepreneurs as finding “opportunities that lie between the cracks of conventional thinking”. Their mindset “eschews how academics, lawyers and policy makers often think about the world, and even seeks to exploit this” (2020-10-15). - Orphan risks hide in exactly those cracks: they “slip between the cracks of conventional risk approaches”. - So risk innovation is not set against entrepreneurial thinking. It brings the outsider’s, cross-disciplinary habit of mind to risk itself, and meets innovators where they work (“a win-win for them and society more broadly”, 2020-11-05). His tone toward the Musk mindset is understanding, even admiring. The concern is futures shaped “on their terms”.

Navigating, landscapes and maps. Navigation language runs through the batch; the language of managing risk barely appears. - Titles and subtitles: “Navigating the Complex World…” and “the exceptionally complex risk landscape of human augmentation” (2020-08-28). - “how will we navigate the shifting path between the present we inhabit, and the future we aspire to?” (2020-10-15). - The image caption “An entrepreneur uses the risk innovation planner to navigate orphan risks” (2020-11-05). - He even titles a section of his review of a friend’s book “Navigating The Future You” (2021-02-04). - The map image is explicit: “we should be working with maps that says in big bold letters, “Here be monsters.”” (FFTF p.146). You chart hazards and keep going; you do not wall them off. - “Manageable” appears once, as an outcome (“clear and substantial social benefits with manageable associated risks”), not as the method.

Novel technologies need a new mindset. The batch offers several reasons, all his own: - Old risk models fail on new kinds of system. The idea that “someone could always just pull the plug” is now “quaint and hopelessly outmoded” once cyber and physical systems are intertwined (FFTF p.145). - The pivot is scale, not new science. What changes BMI governance is “a synergistic scaling of ability, accessibility, and use, that has the potential to profoundly rewrite the landscape”. It therefore “will require an equally dramatic shift in how we approach the ethics, governance and responsible development” (2020-10-15). Neuralink-type technologies can “rewrite the technology landscape before we realize what’s happening”. - Convergent technologies outrun expectations. They “have a habit of transcending our assumptions and expectations”, especially “as we … bring increasingly sophisticated technologies like artificial intelligence into the mix” (2021-02-25). - Complex systems fail suddenly. They “look as if they are thriving, until seemingly-insignificant and often overlooked events lead catastrophic failures” (2020-11-05, sic).

Quantitative foundations and humility. 2020-09-26 shows the physicist and risk scientist at work, building on quantitative thinking without being bound by it: - He reads the evidence closely. He notes small samples, the mostly-female student raters and the white-male-only photos in the face study. He cites non-reproducibility and poor generalisability, and “a classic case of correlation erroneously being confused with causation” (FFTF pp.70–75). - He accepts bounded prediction and rejects false precision. “we will undoubtedly be able to draw boundaries around more or less likely behaviors”, but “I doubt we will ever be able to predict with absolute certainty what someone will do in the future” (FFTF p.76, through Mandelbrot and the chaos ideas of his Jurassic Park chapter). - Science corrects itself, but slowly. “this self-correcting nature of science takes time, sometimes decades or centuries” (FFTF p.75). This matters when technologies move faster than correction can. - He names the hubris. “this is precisely where the ability to tinker without understanding becomes an increasingly serious liability”, and “the complexity of the world we live in remains immeasurably beyond our comprehension” (2021-02-25).

AI risk as orphan risk. In 2020-11-12, AI’s most serious risks lie in “often-subjective but desperately important areas like autonomy, justice, equity, and our ability to have control over our lives”. Hard to quantify, easy to discount, “no less serious”: this is orphan-risk thinking applied to AI, though he does not use the term there. The opacity point in 2020-09-26 belongs with it: we train “artificial brains that we are increasingly ignorant of the inner workings of” (FFTF p.78).

4. Scholarship and public writing#

His books are a living resource timed to public moments. - FFTF chapters are reissued as posts when the news makes them useful: “As Neuralink gears up to demonstrate…” (2020-08-28); “Given renewed interest in this area” (2020-09-26); Palantir’s stock listing (2020-10-04, which asks “how far should we go down this road?”). - The 2018 scholarship is treated as still part of a conversation. In 2021-02-25 he adds a new coda that pushes the 2018 argument further.

He makes advice public. His remarks to the NASEM Committee on Science, Technology and the Law are posted with “And in case you’re interested”. There is no separate private register for policy audiences (2020-10-15).

He critiques his own research in public. He cites his team’s 2019 Neuralink paper and says openly where it was “naïve” (2020-10-15).

Teaching, book and blog form a loop. FFTF was written partly to move course content “out of the classroom”. The course runs on film nights. The blog reports a teaching experiment in week one, with honest uncertainty: “hopefully I’ll feel the same in 14 weeks time!” (2021-01-15). He experiments in public, in real time.

Curation counts as scholarship. - The AI playlist puts Bostrom’s “concerns as well as hopes” alongside videos that “debunk some of the myths”, and alongside Joy Buolamwini, “poet of code” (2020-11-12). - The TIGTech post turns a report into advice for “anyone” building futures (2020-12-15). - His choice of sources is plural: National Academies, grassroots coalitions, a short-seller’s report, film, and a self-help book.

He shows the making. He publishes the brainstorm photo, the rejected covers (“I desperately wanted to use the image of the soap bubble”), abandoned concepts and the sixty-image gallery (2020-10-30). Process is part of what he shares.

How he treats evidence and expertise. - He reads primary studies against the headlines and quotes the researchers’ own caveats (“it would be absurd to suggest…”, FFTF p.69). - He describes Palantir fairly neutrally and puts the concerns in the voice of the people affected. - He respects science (“one of the best tools we have… And it is self-correcting”) while treating it as a human activity open to “human foibles” (FFTF p.75). - He disagrees with experts respectfully: “Yet while I understand these responses, I believe that they’re misguided” (2020-10-15).

Transdisciplinarity. - “my work cuts across boundaries” (2020-12-10). - One post (2020-08-28) moves through neuroscience, medical-device law, cybersecurity, anime, the ethics of switching off defibrillators, and financial short-selling. - In class, the payoff is students realising “it’s OK to share ideas and aspirations that transcend the boundaries of their chosen disciplines” (2021-01-15).

Accessibility as a standard of scholarship, not a watering-down. - He praises TIGTech for being “not in the slightest academic-although the underlying foundations are academically sound” and “written in plain language” (2020-12-15). That is his own standard stated through praise of someone else’s report. - His analogies do real work: a phone contract with sinister “termination” (FFTF p.148); a “twelve year” old tinkering with your laptop’s OS; building the Millennium Falcon from Legos without the chemistry (FFTF p.187); the planetary “Blue Screen of Death”; climate and biodiversity as “the charismatic megafauna of the global threats world”. - The humour and exclamation marks are deliberate. They invite readers in; they are not decoration.

5. His role as he sees it#

A guide and convenor who frames questions. - The playlist “won’t provide any easy solutions” but “may just help frame the questions we should all be asking” (2020-11-12). - Film-based learning needs “the right environment and guide (and both are critically important…)” (2021-01-15). He sees himself as the person who builds that environment, not as the person who hands down answers.

A teacher and dean first. - His favourite class, 80–100 undergraduates “from business to biology”. - His job is Associate Dean for Student Success, and he reads even a self-help book through what it might do for “the students I work with” (2021-02-04). - He credits students by name (Izaac Mansfield, Maya Shrikant) for help with his TEDx script (2020-10-22).

A colleague to innovators, not their scold. - He builds tools for entrepreneurs, aims for a “win-win”, and describes Musk’s mindset with understanding. - His worry is who writes the future, not innovation as such.

An adviser who brings a distinctive lens to NASEM and TIGTech, and says so plainly.

With readers: conversational, participatory, open about bias. - He asks readers to pick their own object for the future (2020-10-22). - He flags his bias: “Of course I may be a little biased here” about the Nexus; he is “somewhat biased” and “not about to throw a colleague under the bus” about BDJ’s book. - He is self-deprecating: “I’m as much of a hot mess as the next person”; “I felt a complete fool!” for publishing a futures book without COVID in it.

What he refuses to do: - Fear-monger. The existential title turns into mundane-but-serious risk, and even the “Here be monsters” passage says it is no “excuse not to build”. - Preach. He values a “non-preachy read” and dislikes smarm. - Blame the public. “It’s easy to dismiss this resistance to the COVID vaccine as irrational thinking”. He puts the burden on institutions. - Make villains. Researchers, Palantir and Musk are described fairly, with concerns raised about the idea or the system. - Despair.

Changes of mind: - He was “somewhat naïve” about Neuralink’s priorities (2020-10-15). - He found the future-as-object idea “a little crazy”, then used it as a scaffold, then dropped it for better ideas (2020-10-22, 2020-10-30). - He called his own TEDx concept “a stupid idea” (2020-10-30). - He was worried about teaching online and then surprised by what it made possible (2021-01-15). - He qualified his own pivot-point claim as “an oversimplification” (2021-02-25).

He treats being wrong as material to think with, not as something to hide.

6. What is distinctive#

1. A third position on hype. He does not ask whether AI or BMI promises are true. He asks what reaching for them does to the path (“warping the pathway”; “Yet this is not the point here”). Most commentators either debunk or boost.
2. The pivot is scaling, not new science. “a synergistic scaling of ability, accessibility, and use”. His answer to the expert who says “nothing really new here” applies directly to AI debates about whether generative models are “just” statistics. (The application to AI is my inference, not his claim in 2020.)
3. Risk defined by value, including the sense of self. Orphan risks are the hard-to-quantify threats that established risk approaches miss, and “outmoded ideas about risk” count as a risk in their own right. The idea comes from inside entrepreneurial culture rather than opposing it: the cracks where innovators find opportunity are the cracks where orphan risks hide.
4. “Who owns you?” He asks about dependence, upgrades, forced servitude and control over intimate technologies (FFTF pp.146–152). The question bears directly on AI systems that people come to rely on cognitively and emotionally. (The AI application is my inference.)
5. A first-principles argument for why inherited intuitions fail. Human-made worlds have not had “billions of years of natural selection” to iron out the kinks. The fitting response is a map marked “Here be monsters”, not a ban and not a checklist.
6. A history of motives. Phrenology leads to machine-learning criminality classifiers through a persistent seductive idea, not through technical ancestry. This lets him see AI misuse as old wine in a new bottle while still taking seriously what is new (opacity, scale).
7. Science corrects itself too slowly for fast technologies (“decades or centuries”). This is a humility argument that respects science and still refuses to lean on it as a safety net.
8. Film and entertainment as shared, felt experience for moral imagination, set against learning-as-pain. Entertainment is a serious part of his method.
9. The future as something one is in a relationship with and responsible to (the soap bubble; the “breakup”). His risk thinking follows from this care. Risk is what threatens a future one cares about, which is why risk and futures sit in the same college, the same posts and the same sentences.
10. Self-correction in public as scholarly method, including correcting his own research findings in front of a policy audience.

7. The posts that best reveal how he thinks#

1. 2020-10-15 ethics-of-BMI. Shows the reach-not-truth move; scaling as the pivot; risk as threat to value and orphan risks offered modestly as a mental model; respectful disagreement with experts; a public admission of naïveté; understanding of the entrepreneurial mindset; the Tesla reframe.
2. 2020-11-05 risk-innovation. “outmoded ideas about risk” as a risk in themselves; mindset over toolkit; risk as relational; complexity and sudden failure; tools given away free.
3. 2021-02-25 base-code. A “what if” opening; first-principles framing of what is new; operating-system analogies; pre-empting his own critic; self-correction (“oversimplification”, “hubristic”) that pushes the idea further (to norms and ideas).
4. 2020-09-26 seductive-slippery-slope. Evidence literacy; the lineage of motives; bounded prediction without false precision; can versus should; fairness to both researchers and critics; the opacity of AI.
5. 2021-01-15 sci-fi-class. Play, entertainment and felt learning as method; permission to cross disciplines; experimenting in public; serendipity from constraint.
6. 2020-10-30 eight-things, read with 2020-10-22 future-as-object. How his ideas are actually made: a colleague’s chance question, ideas used as scaffolds and then dropped, borrowed forms, “stupid” ideas that still produce something, cheerful self-deprecation.

Runner-up for the AI discussion specifically: 2020-11-12 AI-kill-us-all. It turns an existential hook into mundane, subjective, serious risks, and pairs Bostrom’s hopes with myth-busting and Buolamwini.

Differences from the earlier concept notes#

• 2020-10-22 and 2020-10-30 (rated “low” and “none” there) are among the most revealing posts for method: serendipity, scaffolding and play.
• The earlier notes list risk innovation and orphan risks as concepts. This reading finds them used as mental models: offered modestly, valued for widening thought even when a specific assumption failed, and closely tied to the entrepreneurial habit of looking “between the cracks”.
• The earlier notes treat 2020-12-10 and 2020-12-15 as medium-relevance futures and trust material. Read with the new lens, they carry his core values (a responsible relationship with the future, earned trust, humility) that give the risk concepts their purpose.