LindyMan Writer and Twitter Personality
This interview was conducted by Bradley Davis and Peter Kranitz for the Et Alia podcast.
LindyMan, né Paul Skallas, has been a constant sight in our Twitter feeds the past few months. Despite a clear influence from Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Skallas is an original thinker who tries to use the most robust ideas from human history to make sense of the challenges and opportunities in daily life. Our conversation covers concepts such as the Lindy Effect, the Four-Hour Life, monoculture, and much more.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. It is also available on the Et Alia podcast.
Peter Kranitz: On our last episode of Et Alia we talked about Paul’s work on the LindyMan Twitter account and about the Lindy Effect or the Four-Hour Life. If you haven’t listened to that episode yet, I suggest going back and taking a listen to that first, especially if you’re not super familiar with Paul as of yet. Everybody else or if you just want to keep listening, stay tuned. So Paul, how about you give our listeners a quick introduction of yourself?
Paul Skallas: Yeah, I heard your podcast about my work and it was a good faith effort to understand what I’ve been posting about for the last few years. Whether it’s the Lindy Effect, the Four-Hour Life, or the consistency space—I just have a bunch of concepts that I kind of play around with. I think people have gravitated to these. So, when I listened to your last podcast, I thought it was someone trying to understand it. But I thought I’d get on here and actually explain what I thought were maybe some ways of clarifying or explaining it in my own words, which I think would clear up any confusion from your last podcast.
Peter Kranitz: Awesome. Should we start by just kind of going over the Lindy Effect first?
Paul Skallas: Yeah, I think something to keep in mind is just a general overview of what it is trying to say, what it isn’t, and then what I’m trying to do with it. The Lindy Effect was something Nassim Taleb talked about in his book Antifragile and then he expanded in the book Skin in the Game. Really, it just means that if something has been around for a while, it will likely be around longer. But the way I interpret it, and the way he explained it in Skin in the Game, are important when it comes to human nature. It comes into engagement with psychology, because we’ve been living in a time where there are a lot of replication problems. The psychology—I don’t know if you’ve read Daniel Kahneman’s work Thinking Fast and Slow—where he discusses things like ego depletion or priming. There has been a big replication problem with those things that ultimately are not true. In fact, with ego depletion, we can see that it’s actually the opposite [from Kahneman’s account] and this was actually discussed in Seneca.
Peter Kranitz: What is ego depletion?
Paul Skallas: Ego depletion is a phenomenon where the more discipline you engage with during your day, the less you’ll have at the end of the day. So, if somebody puts a plate full of cookies in front of you, and you’re using your willpower to not eat them will actually deplete you later in the day and you’ll engage in something like gambling or something that you can’t resist.
But this was shown not to replicate, and if you read Seneca he actually says the opposite: the more you use your willpower during the day, the stronger it gets. I bring this up because Thinking Fast and Slow is a national bestseller. I’ve read it and I actually did do these sorts of strategies to try and improve my life. But they’re not really real. And it’s like, my God, there is this whole edifice that I think is used by somebody like Jordan Peterson, that is used by an academic establishment that is into pop culture. You see that also with workers and HR or companies trying to implement ways to create a better human or a better worker.
But, briefly, I think the Lindy Effect goes with Taleb’s argument about what is fragile and what is antifragile. A cup is fragile. It doesn’t want to have volatility. If it falls on the ground and breaks, there’s no cup anymore, right? But there’s another class called ideas. These are things that are not perishable and that will actually get stronger over time. They have been filtered by time—which is disorder, which is volatility—and they are still here, and it’s not only something that’s not harmful to us, but it’s actually something useful to us. What I base my sort of posting on—especially on the Daily Lindy Effect, my other Twitter account—I post about the moral sciences, as they call it. Cicero, Seneca, Aurelius, Lucian, poets: this is what human nature is because few of these works have survived for thousands of years. They’ve survived thousands of years and the ancients knew about human nature. Maybe they didn’t know about medicine, physics, or biology. There are some domains that do not work. But human nature? The ancients could observe it. So it works in that domain. That’s basically what the Lindy Effect is: Something is generally useful if it survived the disorder of time.
Peter Kranitz: So how can the Lindy Effect be applied effectively to something on a smaller timescale than just back to classical philosophy? Is it applicable to more recent popular culture? Does it work how we were talking about in our last episode, or was that misguided?
Paul Skallas: No, no. I think what’s interesting about what I post about is.n the twentieth century—I don’t know how old you guys are—but in the twentieth century, you were under a media monoculture regime. There were a few hundred celebrities and if you wanted to listen to music, it was physical. You had to go buy it. There were record labels, there were radio stations, there was an approved list of bands. That was all there was. I mean, you can even talk about something like classic rock, which is a very convenient example. This was culture.
It coincided with America becoming a global powerhouse, exporting its culture throughout the world, and also with media being physical and expensive. We kind of live in an age where you grew up in the structure with gatekeepers who allowed you to have these things—who said that this is good. Something about the Lindy Effect that’s interesting is that peer review doesn’t matter. The audience today doesn’t matter. Like I was reading today about Moby-Dick and Herman Melville, he wrote Moby-Dick. Nobody read it. He died as a customs operator in New York. Now, a hundred years after he died, this book is being taught at every school in America, and it is this giant piece of literary work that he never saw anybody read. It went out of print and nobody cared. Now, this book is lauded as this classic of American literature with lessons on perseverance, struggle, obsession, or whatever you want to call it, but it’s useful in a way. And this is 150, 160 years later?
So anyways, getting back to the media monoculture. Now, we have transitioned to this decentralized culture. The Internet has kind of destroyed everything. Everybody’s in a niche. You guys are doing a podcast, you guys probably wouldn’t have made it to NBC, right? Probably would not have made it to like a radio station DJ, right? There were only a few spots. Now, you’re just some dudes who start a radio show and write your listeners and have some people retweeting and there is a network. There are a million people on SoundCloud. So I do think what is interesting about using the Lindy Effect is using it on a smaller time scale. To see who in the twentieth century media monoculture is actually worthwhile and is going to survive. What work is going to become useful, what work is going to become part of the real canon—not just the canon that some expert thought up. A critic is a good job. You review movies, you review music, you review literature, that is a great job. As a critic, you want to create your own canon, that may not be real but it is up to you trying to be an interesting writer. But the only real expert is Lindy, right? The only real expert is things that have survived, have proven useful in an objective way. And so I think using it on smaller timescales is fun. I don’t think it’s wrong. I think we have lived during a time of complete information overload. Especially now, in the centralized period where no one knows what’s really going to survive. Now when the decentralized period started around 2006 or 2007, that’s when I saw culture kind of stopped. Superhero movies keep being remade. There’s no clear shift.
Brad Davis: What is it that caused the shift? What brought death to the monoculture? You’re saying in 2006 or 2007—I think I’ve seen you write 2004—somewhere, something in the mid-aughts changed, what was that? Is it just the Internet? Is there something more to this shift?
Paul Skallas: I don’t know why. Some people speculated YouTube as a cause, it became bigger around 2005 or 2006. Maybe the smartphone era? I don’t know. I just don’t see the decade shift. I don’t see a shift in the monoculture. Before you would also have these national conversations, like Seinfeld, or these big shows, and you don’t really see big shows anymore. I mean, Game of Thrones is the last one. But they don’t come on very often and now everything is kind of splintered. So you asked me what caused this? I don’t know. There’s a decentralization process happening here. I think it’s plain to see, especially if you’ve lived in the era at the end of the twentieth century, when I grew up. I think if you’re younger, this is just what you know, or you may not be able to see it as much. But yeah, there’s no real change—there’s a change within the niches and within the subcultures but above it—I don’t see much change in clothing, style, or music.
You can argue that the corporate model has somehow responded to this emergence of all these subcultures by focusing on what works and just never changing from that, which was very different from the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s, ’90s, or 2000s. But there was a real shift every decade.
Peter Kranitz: So this cultural death or monocultural stagnation that came about, what if we just reached peak cultural Lindy? What if the ultimate cultural form is the superhero movie and the tweet. Is that possible, or no? They’ve been resilient for, like you were saying, longer than other things.
Paul Skallas: Yeah, yeah. So you could say what if remaking Batman becomes Lindy? Right? Well, we’ll just keep making Batman for the next hundred years, which I think is monstrous. I mean, it is terrible. I think people understand that this is bad. I think if you have a brain, then you understand that—wow!—they’re releasing another Batman in the fourth or fifth incarnation since like 2000. And they’re making them dark.
Peter Kranitz: They’re making it darker and still make billions of dollars, too, on each of these new releases, right?
Paul Skallas: Right, but do you rewatch superhero movies?
Peter Kranitz: I don’t even watch them.
Paul Skallas: Right, me neither, but they will still keep releasing new ones. I think now novelty is something that makes money but I don’t know if anybody’s rewatching these things again. The thing with the Lindy Effect is maybe Batman is Lindy and Paul is wrong. That could happen. So that’s why I focus a lot on things that have already been proven to be Lindy, and so I only speculate on other things. I think the Beatles haven’t become—maybe some classic rock stuff has a chance, right? Because that’s now what we’re heading toward. So that was mid- to late ’60s. It’s 2020. We’re at like sixty years, is that right? Fifty or sixty years. So, for music, that’s not bad. Some of that stuff is still around, but in a decentralized version. So I think that’s more interesting. But, you know, the Batman movie stuff. I mean, to me, I think very few films are going to be Lindy. What people think is canon isn’t really a canon. I think a lot has been held up in the twentieth century by critics and by these artificial structures. Now, I think that we’re out of it. What’s going to survive on its own without an army of critics, an army of people trying to sell you VHS tapes, or LaserDisc? I guess we will see.
Brad Davis: Do you think that’s a unique problem to this point in time? I mean, it definitely seems like the stagnation is greater in the amount of canonization or building out a franchise of commercial products—this is obviously greater than it was 100 or 150 years ago. But, that same process of having so much bad culture or wasteful culture, doesn’t that dying off help the Lindy things survive? Or, is that mechanism a new one you think?
Paul Skallas: I think we’re living in like an apex of consumer culture and you get bombarded by stuff all the time. We’re focused on movies and film and cartoons, they’re not really interesting, I don’t think they’re going to survive just because they can never rise to the level of wear of anything other than short term entertainment. The medium itself won’t allow it. No kids movie can ever become as good as the best novel, just because the medium won’t allow it. But I also think that you’re living in the apex of consumer culture and global supply chains and you’re being bombarded. You wake up, you go to sleep, and there are screens everywhere, so you’re bombarded by writing as well. So it’s just not like reading novels now. You could tap into all types of writing and I think in a way we’re testing the Lindy Effect more than we’ve ever tested it right now, because not everybody can engage in the consumer economy. There’s an attention economy. And one thing I talked about is, commercials have been around for like sixty or seventy years, eighty years, and I never remember a commercial, and they’re never good. And I had YouTube. I signed up for YouTube Premium because I got tired of listening to the commercials while I was listening to music, but I can’t remember one. And for some reason, there’s certain art forms or certain expressions that just none of it last. So if you’re asking me, is this a novelty? I think yeah, this is a crazy time to live in. Because I don’t know that anybody in the past has ever been bombarded by so much information and so much art or expression in history, and objects and refinement. So I think Lindy is kind of needed. And also not just in culture but also psychology and theories. And making a new man. I think it’s most useful in taming the psychological obsession that people have with labeling, with psychological phenomenons and the social sciences. I think this sort of provides a baseline for people and behavior.
Peter Kranits: So as a baseline, you mean the works of the ancients that have lasted until now as a source of psychological insight rather than modern peer-reviewed journals or whatever.
Paul Skallas: Yeah, and there’s a lot of lessons. Like sometimes [the ancients] get it right—like loss aversion: men feel the good less intensely than the bad. There’s a lesson in there, a way to live life, which is be careful about losing things, you’re just going to feel it more. I post about this all the time, the madness of crowds, the paradox of progress, overconfidence. Once you start reading it, you’ll find a lot. But it does provide a check to people like Jordan Peterson, and maybe neo-traditionalist movements that we’re seeing sprout up on the Internet, because you’re seeing a lot of people—I think you talked about this in your last podcast—you’re seeing a traditionalist revival on the Internet. It’s a subculture, so a genre, and people are gravitating to it, and you have different angles to it. Different practitioners who are selling it. I wouldn’t put myself in that basket, but there are people who are engaged with that, and they’re gaining a following, and that’s one of the problems. That’s one of the issues with the monoculture being destroyed. You can just choose whoever you want now, to follow? Which is kind of like how we’ve always lived with localism: kind of like small town idols instead of these Rolling Stones types, touring around the world, everybody knows who they are. We’re meant to be in more of a localist environment, and you’re seeing that in the Internet a little bit.
Peter Kranitz: So I want to transition a little bit. Could you define the Four-Hour Life and the Twelve-Hour Life for us, and how that slots into the Lindy stuff we were just talking about.
Paul Skallas: I think I thought about that. When I was reading Taleb, he was talking about risk takers, and his books are about people who take risks. People who start a business or entrepreneurs, people who have downside, and upside. And then there’s also a lot of these people on Twitter who, I don’t know what you’d call them, gurus or people who are trying to sell you success or trying to sell to you not just motivation, but also tips. This is all over the place. Like trying to get rich. I remember in the ’90s there were infomercials, and now it has gone to Twitter, but the whole time I’m sitting there going like, What about an employee? Most people are employees. Ninety percent of Americans are employees. Ten percent are small business owners. And this is kind of novel, we live in a scaled up economy, where in the past there were much more small businessmen, small businesses, people would own them. Even America 100 years ago, it was so radically different. We are living you know, an age of corporations.
Peter Kranitz: Small business and subsistence in the past, right? Small business and subsistence more or less prior to—
Paul Skallas: Or even just somebody like a tradesman who owned—It’s just in the last fifty years, you saw gravitation toward big corporations, employees, big scaled-up institutions. And now it’s up to ninety percent. And now, if you’re an employee, you may only know other employees. So I started thinking, Who are these guys talking to? Who is the audience? And it’s just other employees. And not not a lot of these guys aren’t so-called entrepreneurs. And they’re giving advice that works in one domain, which is the entrepreneurial domain. And it doesn’t work in the employee domain. These are two different domains. So the Four-Hour Life is: You will work, that’s eight hours; you go to sleep, that’s eight hours; and then you commute, eat dinner, maybe work out; all that you’re left with is like four hours in a day.
And this is what everybody has, Four-Hours of the day without work or work-related or health-related or social-related activities that someone has to do during the day. Then there’s something called the consistency space that every employee is in, because if you look at what an employee is, there’s a reason why businesses don’t hire contractors for every piece of work. Because that contractor might not be there, he might take another offer. So, you need someone who’s reliable, who you’re paying for reliability. You’re not paying necessarily for competence, although that’s nice. Sometimes, when you’re working as an employee, you don’t have work to fill out a whole day but they’re paying you to be reliable, to be there. There’re reputations involved and there’s compliance and behavior involved. There’s not just a contract. And so you need to perform consistently every day. You need to have a routine that’s consistent.
Five days a week of work is the usual for people, and you have to be reliable. But if you look at the other domain, which Taleb talks about a lot, which is the entrepreneurs, people who focus on profit and loss, he says they’re a little wild because they’re not paid for behaviors. They’re not paid for compliance. They’re paid to make money. So, there are these radical domains, and they’re also not in the consistency business, they’re in the payoff business, where all you have to do is be right once or twice. And that’s it. And the rest, it doesn’t matter. Whereas, as an employee, you’re always on the edge of the downside, which is getting laid off—getting fired. The so-called “turkey problem,” which is that the turkey doesn’t know Thanksgiving is coming up, but the butcher does. The turkey is getting fat and he’s eating well and he thinks this is what life’s gonna be like forever, right? So every employee has that issue. I just found that there are these two radical domains. And then I expanded it over time. How is your behavior manipulated in a hierarchy? How do you move in the workplace when your boss is around versus when you’re outside of work? We’re deeply social creatures so you’ll see people walk up, walk differently, their gait changes or their voice will change.
You’ll see very ancient sorts of behaviors, in a way. You’ll see the flattening of natural volatility, I don’t think we’re made to be consistent as human beings. I think we’re made —I think that’s why you’ll see people act radically. Maybe after work or spending money to compensate for the lack of volatility and flattening their behavior over time at work to comply with a reputation-based compliance. There is a different type of exhaustion with the Four-Hour life.
I think you need a narrative because you need to apply to different jobs. So you need to have why you’re doing what, how you got there, what motivates you. I think in payoff space, it’s more of a numbers game. As long as you’re there, you don’t need a reason to do something, you just do it. So there are a lot of factors. I think people on Twitter have talked about it as well.
So yeah, that’s an overview of the Four-Hour Life.
Brad Davis: One of the things you’ve tweeted that I found most engaging, you had a thread talking about how we are modern slaves as employees. Your advice was measured, it seemed to be pointing toward accepting that this Four-Hour Life is just the way things are going to be—trying to accept that and make the best of it. Is that the biggest difference between you and say, Jordan Peterson or BAP or the other Twitter—you said gurus, some of them a little more grifters? Is that what makes LindyMan different?
Paul Skallas: I think in that whole mix, I keep my feet on the ground. I talk about what is relevant to me on a one-to-one scale.I think it’s easy to take people on a journey, in a way. To take them for a ride and have them care about stupid shit like campus protests, like anything that matters at the university. Jordan Peterson got rich off that. He made grown men who go to work every day care about kids protesting at campuses, and it’s like, nothing that happens at a university campus matters to your life. It will never matter to your life. This is a show, this is a work. This is why pro wrestling is very valuable to know, because there’s a kayfabe—there’s a show going on. I think in a lot of ways Trump does this. Where he just gets a crowd in a frenzy, puts you in a tribe. Like, hold on a second, you work for a living, right? What are we? What are we doing here? You’re worried about eighteen year-old kids protesting at some university? It’s nuts. But I think that’s the game. For a lot of these guys, they get you—someone who either works for a living or whatever— to care about their pet issues, get you involved, get you on the ride and put you in a tribe.
Brad Davis: That is really interesting, thank you. Another tweet that I really love is your origin story—that was really entertaining. You’ve got it pinned up top. You were trying to find the ancient word for blue, which seemed like quite the quest. I’d like to hear a little bit about that. But also, you’re making a lot of reference to ancient philosophy and ancient thought, it seems to have this sort of presumption that truth is Lindy. If these things are still around, there has to be some truth to them, some applicability to them, or maybe they’re just effective in our lives? So there remained the rumor that you disproved, that there wasn’t an ancient word for blue. Having existed it has been a Lindy concept, but, as you demonstrate, it is an untruthful one. Is truth Lindy? Explain more of your work on that. How did that change your mind?
Paul Skallas: I mean, I don’t even use the word “true.” I talk about what’s useful to your life, what things are robust at the time and what things are not harmful. I think truth is a loaded term. I think you’re entering into philosophy-land, and I don’t want to be in philosophy-land. I think that’s a fine place to be. But I want to stick to what is useful in your day-to-day life. And I think that’s why I focus on these so-called moral sciences. And the so-called aphorisms, just how people behave. I’ve never really talked about any sort of abstract philosophy other than just something you can use in your life. For the blue thing, yeah, I read it in Taleb’s book and I thought that was crazy. What was he talking about? They didn’t have a word for blue? Then, I did my own research and I found he was referencing a book that someone wrote, and then there’s this long tradition of color theory that people like Goethe and, I forgot the other names.
Peter Kranitz: Goethe’s theory of colors, his work on that is pretty wild.
Paul Skallas: Yeah, it’s crazy, crazy stuff. There’s a long tradition. Like everybody’s trying to crack a puzzle. There’s even Baker and Kay, these really well-established academics who thought they came up with a uniform theory of color, which is like everybody starts with a thread. Then, they start with black and white, and then blue comes after, then orange—and so it was just weird. I’m kind of an obsessive, so I was interested, and also the payoff of trying to prove someone I respect made a mistake. I’m a big Nassim Taleb fan, I think he’s great. Probably the greatest philosopher of our day, and there’s a motivation for thinking I’m going to correct him. I think he’s wrong here.
It was contested, but I think giving like referential sources I found out that something in Hebrew—what is it? Eyeliner? Right, eyeliner—kohl— actually meant blue. I went through that source and I went through the ancient Greek sources. And apparently [Taleb] relied on this book, and he made this error. It was cool, it opened up this crazy world of blue being the sacred color from the Akaadians to the present. You saw it in their kings, they would paint their beards blue. If you look at Ancient Egypt, they would use a lot of blue figurines and blue crowns. You would see that the Virgin Mary would always be wearing blue. Then, also, Jesus would sometimes be wearing blue. Then you see this long tradition of blue being considered the color of the sacred through numerous cultures in the ancient world.
There are arguments of why and where it started. Like the lapis lazuli was something that was prized because it was more expensive than gold. There’s references to the sky or the water. But yeah, it was a wild ride. It was just this weird thing you stumble on, I guess. That was kind of fun. And then he referenced—I corrected him, and that’s good stuff. That’s like old school, man. You find that your favorite author made a mistake, so I’m going to go to him directly on Twitter. And he made a mistake, I’m gonna prove him wrong. I don’t think that happens anymore. Whenever you read a book, you move on to the next one. People still correct authors in a way. That was cool.
Peter Kranitz: Yeah, that’s awesome. I feel like there’s sort of an irony of everyone being so much more easily accessible, The author or whoever. But fewer people are going to actually do the research anymore—to find those mistakes, to track them down, you know?
Paul Skallas: Yeah, that’s another thing, it’s like a localism thing. What would you do in 1985 if you made a mistake? Nothing. Write a letter to a magazine? They’re not going to print it, nobody cares. Today, there is this wall. “Hey,” somebody says on Twitter, “I think you made a mistake. Let me show you.” I think this is the way it’s supposed to be in a way.
Peter Kranitz: Since we’re running a little bit low on time, but there’s one or two more things I want to ask. This is spurring a lot of thoughts in me, it’s making the gears turn. One thing that we think is super cool that you do is that once you get above 8000 followers or so on Twitter, you cull through them and keep your followers count down to around 8000. You “run a lean operation.” Can you tell us a little bit about why you do that?
Paul Skallas: I think my stuff got picked up on some weird traditional circles and there’s a lot of kids that like to talk shit and it’s like, first of all, I’m gonna block you. If you try speaking negatively, when that happens. It’s weird. You start posting and people just sort of mock.
Peter Kranitz: Yeah, it’s like the haters start coming out.
Paul Skallas: Yeah, and then you block them and they get more obsessed after you’ve blocked them. And then you block their friends and their friends start coalescing into an anti-LindyMan genre or group. There’s something to be said about when you block someone—they become more obsessed with you. It’s weird. Stop! There’s stalking—women I think know this—women are like, “Don’t stalk me.” The guy keeps stalking them. There’s a weird thing going on. Also, people aren’t used to the TV coming out—the TV shutting off itself. So I think people are just like, “What is going on? I want to follow you. You’re not letting me?”
I think that’s a shift because we’re surrounded by corporations and everybody wants your money. Everybody wants to be nice to you because there’s a transaction, but there’s no transaction here. I just post my thoughts on the Internet and I do it in system one, which is if I have a thought I just post it. I don’t edit it. I don’t try to refine it. I don’t think about what I post, I try to make it as pure as possible. In one way, I also think long-term employment numbs your system of thinking. You get a little apprehensive about what to post, and I also think it cuts down on some of the interesting ideas you get in your head. So I think one of the cool things I talked about is, what’s a writer nowadays? We’re surrounded by screens everywhere. People are born into screens now. I think there’s a shift in writing going on. I don’t know if you’d call yourself—I mean, you can call yourself a writer, sure. You still read and write books or whatever. But it’s a radically different environment. And when you think of whether previous writers would use this medium, I think they would.
But anyways, for the blocking. It’s my feed, it’s my rules. The weird thing is when you block someone, sometimes they don’t go away. I blocked people two, three years ago who still complain about it.
Peter Kranitz: How many people do you think you’ve blocked at this point?
Paul Skallas: I don’t know, thousands. Thousands of people. I also think, what is a Twitter follower count? What does it even mean? Some of the biggest accounts have the worst content. So what are we doing here? Are we just trying to gain followers? And then what do we do? Shift to a Patreon model, trying to funnel customers into some sort of business scheme? A lot of people do that, email lists or whatever. But when I look at it, I’m not here to run a business. I’m here to just post my thoughts and come up with maybe a little community of people whom I can talk ideas with. To me, that’s the sane way of using Twitter if you’re not using it as a business. Now, if you want to make this into a business, you have to run up the follower count. You see this all the time, what people do.
Peter Kranitz: I always say that there’s way more readers and writers now than there ever has been, but the content quality is so much worse than it ever has been, too. So I think there’s definitely value in cultivating that quality of content and quality of consumer of the content.
Paul Skallas: If you think about it, everybody can be a writer now. Nobody could in any other era. Now you literally have millions and billions of people who can pick up the phone and start posting, and that’s a writer in my opinion. You’re having everybody now. So there’s a level of saturation. I don’t know what’s going to last from this era. I don’t know what’s going to last. What started in 2018 or 1920 and will make it for 2000 or 3000 years. I don’t know what, because everybody’s here now. I think that’s really interesting. The only way for me to engage with it is just creating—I call it the Lindy table—but just a little spot where you have regulars and you just post your thoughts. Other than that? Man, I don’t know. I mean, this is a radically new environment. So I’m not sure anybody has answers.