Twitteretter

A few days ago I started a Youtube channel designed to offer Twitteretter to its thus far limited audience in a new format, video, cognisant of the fact that many do not read these days, and of the importance of trying to reach those, maybe even more than reading audiences. As I marketed the channel, something curious happened. Curious, but I think significant. I received many comments on the appearance and set up of the channel and suggestions as to how to enhance it, gadgets I should invest in to improve my lighting and delivery, additional elements I may consider for better visuals, etc. No comments, however, on the content which, in my mind, is what matters, maybe not in many other channels, but certainly on Twitteretter. This seems to be what we have come to, a society concerned only with the wrapping, not with the content, superficially surfing reality on a sensorial wave, without a rational rudder to keep us away from the rocks. I will focus on the content, to the horror of many...

I am at times preoccupied with how to increase the Twitteretter readership and, at those times, I am relieved that I am not trying to do the same on Twitter. It seems to me that, to find resonance in social media, to achieve that holy grail of virality, the most effective tactic is to be aggressive or offensive against an idea or person respected and despised by equal portions of the population. This tactic has the best chance to generate engagement (here is the English language showing its ability to evolve with technological evolution for the third time in just a few lines) and to attract platform (fourth) users, some of whom may stick (fifth).   I should probably try it, at least at some point, to see how it transfers to longer content and, should I decide to do so, there are plenty of people and ideas which would fit the above target specification and who I would have no logical trouble or moral qualms in attacking.   If you have a favourite, leave me a comment and I will ...

The term R zero number has become familiar, due to the coronavirus pandemic, to many more people than it used to be. I think the concept is only just faintly grasped by most, but that is a start for sure. The problem with coronavirus is that, if unchecked, it has a very high R zero number (anything over 1 is high) and as a result it will spread like wildfire through a population. As a writer, of course, I want my work to be read by the highest number of people possible. This means Twitteretter needs to have a high R zero number. If you support my aim and believe Twitteretter to be useful or interesting, the way we can achieve a high R zero can be modelled on the virus spread. You need to read the articles and convince more than one person to not only do the same but also convince a subsequent person to do those two things, and so on. This would bring wildfire to the Twitteretter readership. It sounds easy when you look at it that way, and I really think we should give it a go Length: 9...

Twitteretter keeps progressing, according to my initial aims. I still have over 700 entries to write over two more years. This gives me the luxury to be somewhat unselective as to what I cover, as I have plenty of chance to cover everything I may be, or become, interested in. I am currently in what an economist would call a situation of abundance. However, this will change, as I suddenly realised today, when weighing four article ideas knowing full well I do not have to choose between them. What choice will I make when 1,000 entries are behind me and I can only write one more? When I reach maximum scarcity? I’ve always thought success and happiness are predicated on having choices, on engineering situations in which, when confronted with a difficult choice, you have the resources to not choose, to take both desired avenues, because you have the time, the money or the energy needed to do so. One thing I know for sure, that difficult moment will not make me start Twitteretter Edition Two...

I did an interesting exercise today, at least interesting for me. I calculated the date on which I’ll publish my last Twitteretter, post 1,001. 22 nd December 2022. Firstly, this is very fitting. When growing up in Spain, 22 nd December was the start date of the Christmas holidays, packed with the excitement of the break and festivities ahead, and with the feeling of having completed an important stage, the first term of the academic year. Ending Twitteretter on such a date works serendipitously. I wonder what I will be writing about at the time. I can promise you it will not be coronavirus, hopefully because it is gone and not just because I am fed up with it as a subject, which will happen much, much sooner. I expect I will still be writing about social injustice, inequality and political cloak and dagger. I hope I will, however, also be writing about amazing achievements in science and technology and the paradigm changes they may bring to our society and politics. I look forward t...

Why does US have a much greater number of tech start ups than Spain? Some commonly cited reasons are skills and entrepreneurial spirit. This is the myth of Silicon Valley. It no longer holds true. Spain has many high quality, highly educated individuals, and many have entrepreneurial spirit. After years of international ‘entrepreneuring’, I have concluded that the biggest difference is access to capital. US is full of family offices, angel investors and venture capitalists who will fund tech start ups. In Spain, there are very few. And funding is critical to both the success and dimension of any new business. A great Spanish idea with a hugely entrepreneurial founder will most likely not reach the mass needed to succeed globally due to lack of finance. This, I think, is because US is full of people who have made fortunes in technology. They understand tech and that investing in tech is highly profitable. In Spain, money has been made differently, and that understanding is lacking