waido's reviews
24 reviews

Short, concise, and to the point summary of the core philosophy of Buddhism. The book seems to cover the broad principle as well as the basics of meditation, so it would be suitable for curious readers and beginners of Buddhism as an introduction.

As someone who have little to no experience on the topic who's currently looking into it out of curiosity, I find the book to be a perfect starting point.

There are some good bits, but the author seems to have a habit of a few ego-fuelled rants here and there. In addition, the conclusion on what to do from now on is a bit anti-climatic: "eat, exercise, and fund the ageing research". There's not a whole lot of action-steps to be taken there.

If you're interested in ageing, this could have some potentially interesting information on the mechanics if you are willing to look past the overly hopeful writing tone and egocentric rants.

It's a good book that discusses different angles of meritocracy and how it could be corrosive to the common good through the lens of statistics, politics, philosophy. The arguments made are nuanced and comprehensively backed up by statistics and morality.

It is largely well-written. However, since the author references so many sources and jumps back and forth between these, I find it a bit difficult at times to keep track of the main point being argued for in a given section. It also sometime feels like the same point is being repeated over and over again but in a different flavour (for example, on the rhetoric of rising).

It's still overall a great book, but does take a bit more effort to read than other books of the same category because of the above reasons.

An interesting book that discusses the existence of free will and its implications. One fun argument from the various one presented was considering free will from the non-deterministic aspect. If I were to choose an animal to write down now, I would go with a cat. Did I conciously created that thought, or was it something that just arised to me. Why didn't I think of a dog or a dolphin? Of course, I could change my mind and write down either of those two animals, but even then, what would have caused me to choose the animal I've chosen? As Schopenhauer put it in a quote from the book, "Man can do what he will but he cannot will what he wills." I find it interesting that when we trace down the origin of these supposedly free choices as the one between cat, dog, or dolphin, we will eventually reach a point where our desire(s) just arise with no sense of delibertion. Where, then, is the freedom in that process?

The book also discussed a lot of implications from moral to polical. The author argued that even if free will doesn't exist, it doesn't necessitate that rewards and punishments are meaningless since they themselves take part in influencing our actions.

One small criticism I would give is that while the argument for free will through the lense of unconciously emerging thoughts is a strong one, the author only brought up simple examples such as "picking breakfast", "deciding to stick to a diet or not", or "choosing what animal to write down. These examples are simple because there are only two (or close to two) competing impulses/thoughts. Furthermore, the decision are somewhat random and impulse-driven. I think it would merit the argument if the author bring up an example where a more complex and deliberate choice was made. For instance, choosing which company to invest in or which steps to take when solving a problem. I think that in those cases, the decision could still be traced back to a combination of thoughts that "just arise", but the author did not brought up those examples and stick to the impulse-driven one instead.

A good high-level crash course/refresher on Machine Learning. The authors made good use of analogies and examples to explain the intuition behind the concepts. I also appreciate the fact that supplementary material is aptly given for all concepts in the course. This make the book a great entry point to Machine Learning that you can branch off from and dive deeper into the things you are interested in.

Usually not my type of book (the length would be the first reason) but I read it because of a recommendation from a friend. Pacing was slow but thanks to its length, this act as a strength to truly explore the characters and their lives in high resolution. Before I knew it, I was invested in these people's lives and their connection.

The theme of trauma was done reasonably well in this book and it didn't feel like it was forced or used as pure shock value.

Although I didn't quite like the ending, the author built up to it so logically that it seemed like a foregone conclusion. I have nothing bad to say about the book so for now it deserves a 5.

Very decent book on digital note-taking and the Zettelkasten method. I'll probably use some of the things that were mentioned since they don't seem to make sense to me, but that doesn't take away from the book as a whole.

An example of the things that don't make sense is the folder-based note-sorting method PARA. We already can retrieve notes almost instantly with tags and keywords, so unless the need for separation is needed (for example to separate work, life, school, etc.), why would we spend time sorting them according to PARA at all?

Neverthelesss, the book was insightful and there was quite a lot of things to take away from it. The author also encourage taking the parts that resonates with you and forget the rest, and I tend to agree with that. 

"Our earth is their Moon; our Moon is their earth.”
“Where, then, is Truth?”
“In the hill one happens to be sitting on”

Utopian novel sometimes fall into the pitfall of making things too perfect. They serve the purpose of being the background to highlight the flaws in our own society. The Dispossessed, however, seems to strike a balance between presenting both the positive and negative of the two systems it presented.

Although the worlds roughly resemble our own, they seem so distant and strange at the same time. The protagonist Shevek, in a sense is an alien in both his homeland - Anarres - and the land of his supposed "enemies" - Urras. The story travels back and forth between the two worlds and through his lens, I can't help but also feel like we as readers are also aliens, marveling at the beauty of the two moons and reflect on their flaws.

Overall, a great book with good world building and interesting ideas.

A very calm and cozy book, just like the coffee shop that it take place in. I can't say that a lot happened in the book, but it's quite a relaxing and enjoyable read.

The book revolves heavily around the theme of time traveling and regrets. What I find interesting is that unlike the common time traveling motive of fixing the present, the book explore the aspect of fixing the time travelers. Knowing that the present is fixed and cannot be changed, they still opted for the time traveling experience to come to terms with their mistakes. Once they do that, they gained the necessary insight and courage live their present and shape their future. The great thing I find about this simple message is that we don't really need time traveling to face our past regrets. Sure, time traveling helps but we can do just fine without it.

A small thing that I dislike about the book is that the character cast doesn't have much depth to them. We get to know what they are like and the circumstances that leads to their time traveling decision but not much more than. It doesn't help that the above trope of coming to terms with your mistakes replayed for all the characters, so the story becomes quite predictable at times. However, these didn't weighed down the experience for me too much and I still find this to be quite a good and relaxing bedtime read.

Overall a decent book on the topic, with good and actionable advice. However, some of his advice doesn't really hold up. For example, he cited Logan Paul as an example for being funny and not being too serious. At the time of this review, that example has aged like milk, not just one time but many times over. Let just say that we only look at the past Logan Paul, I would still say that it is not a very good example of being charismatic. There's a fine line between being charismatic and being a douche, and I'm not sure I can put Logan on the charismatic side.

That brings up another thing I dislike about the book. It sort of assume that there is a single type of "charisma" and all charismatic people possess that. While there are certainly overlap, I think that there are definitely some people who are charismatic in their own ways despite them not fitting to the ideal model that the book revolves around (loud, energetic, funny, smiley, deep voiced, etc.) It would be nice if the author could touch briefly on other types of charisma as well.  People are different and I think it would be better and less forceful if someone can mold their charisma around their personality, instead of molding their personality to be charismatic.

With all of that asides, the other insights from the book are pretty useful. The book also includes a practical guide on how to practice your charisma which seems quite detailed and helpful.