• I launched 320 amazing websites last night.

• I transcribed 120 podcast episodes.

• I created 4 web applications.

• I migrated 437 videos (500gb+)

• I saved our company $1,700 a year in software tools.

• I had 4 hours of meetings training people to do this.

• I sent 123 personalized emails.

• I completed a family genealogy back to 1634

• I launched 9 new ad campaigns.

• 3 new landing pages.

This is just the last 36 hours. Less than 2 days.

In 2 months I’ve saved our company $70,000 in direct one time costs (and did it in 2 months instead of 6) and over $50,000 per year in annual recurring costs.

In between I also had a hackathon with my buddy Greg and we taught eachother about what we have learned doing this and we each got better.

Greg and his wife own a great business in town and pays $850 a month for the software to manage it. So last night we re-wrote the entire software stack. We started at 5:30pm and it was done by 8am.

The world has changed. Anything you can dream up YOU can build.

There are no more middlemen.

The only limit is your imagination.

I will show anyone how to do this. It’s soooooo much fun. I can’t stress enough… I will show ANYONE how to do this.

Leave a comment

Share

This is the most fun that I have had in years.

And as I use these ai tools more and read history more the more I realize that:

Ai isn’t replacement. It’s expansion.

Let’s go back to the example I used of my fathers job. He was a skill trades tool and die marker at General Motors. Yes, his job did change and get automated. Tasks that used to take hours, could now be done in minutes or seconds. It meant that my dad’s job had to change.

The workers now would be focused on programming, designing, inventing the cars. And this allowed the car to be made much more affordably which meant that more people were able to afford them. The total market for cars expanded and simultaneously, the technology in the car got better and better.

The car got safer with inventions like lane assistance sensors, intelligent airbags, automatic emergency braking, blind spot monitoring, and adaptive cruise control.

Those inventions and advancements all required humans to make them. They just weren’t on the line doing back breaking dangerous work, they were in offices using their brains to invent new technologies that made all our lives better.

I have to remind myself that jobs are created and destroyed every minute. And that many of the jobs that I am nostalgic about were not that great.

Does anyone really miss working in a mine shaft far from their family with a real fear of death at any moment? I don’t think so. Similarly, with grinding metal in an auto factory.

My post last week wasn’t to say that I am fearful of ai. I was hoping to convey that I understand why people are fearful. That I too am fearful. And as my business coach, Dino likes to say. “It’s not change that people fear. It’s loss.”

I was fearful that I was losing my purpose. My profession. My “edge”. I try to remind myself that we have seen this before. In the 2000’s I was working at a desktop software company and when mobile technology exploded, many of us software people feared that desktop software was dead. But we were dead wrong (Punny?).

In reality, desktop usage has stayed steady and slightly increased since then. While mobile usage also surged from 1 hour a day usage to now an average of 4 hours. Again, it wasn’t replacement. It was expansion. And TechSmith still sells Snagit and Camtasia desktop software today!

It was natural for a desktop software maker to fear that mobile was going to steal all their jobs and revenue. But that’s usually not what happens. It is just hard to see the future. It was hard to see that we would be able to hail a cab, identify stars, fly a drone, and identify skin cancer with mobile phones.

Technology enables so many things that have never existed before that it makes them hard to imagine. Around the time of WW2, electricity was far less common in German homes. German prisoners of war that came to America would write letters amazed by the technology that they saw in America.

They would go through cities fascinated by the lights, because at this time about 80% of American homes had electricity. Lights to read by, washing machines, refrigerators, electric stoves, and vacuum cleaners.

So in closing. I’m sorry that my last post made people think I was fearful of ai.

The truth is that I’ve been staying up late and waking up early to play with these tools.

It has NEVER been more fun to build. I am designing websites, applications… I’m creating more than I ever have. Even my 7 year old now has his own website and 2 video games that he created.

ai didn’t replace software developers, it means that we are now ALL software developers!

These tools make what was a skill only a few were able to use to now anyone can use them.

It reminds me of the Computer. There used to be rooms full of people that would spend their entire day computing equations like artillery firing tables during WWII or plotting rocket trajectories for NASA space missions. Computer was a job title.

But then the computer machine came along. Those people still existed but they now were able to use a computer machine to process even more data. Computing didn’t go away, we got way more computing that we ever had before.

This is all to say, I’m sorry that my post last week scared some. That wasn’t my intent. I would say that 90% of the time I am absolutely in love with ai and the opportunities and possibilities that it presents. But I did want to be honest and confess that I too sometimes wake up with a fear that I am being replaced. And that is totally natural and human.

What do you think? Am I off base? How are you feeling about ai?

Leave a comment

Share

My dad always described his work at GM as “a tool maker”. He’d say he made the tools that helped repair the tools that made the cars. I don’t know if I have any of that right since I was a kid when he said it.

My understanding is that the big General Motors plants would have a few guys that were on the “tool maker” team and they would be skilled techs that would make the tools for that plant.

As GM scaled and consolidated their operations, my dads job changed. Instead of making the tools for just one plant, they centralized them all to Grand Blanc. Now my dad would have to travel from Lansing to Grand Blanc

But the bigger change for my dad was that instead of his day to day job being different and variable based on what was going on at that plant.

He now described his job as boring.

He would just wait for a robot to finish making a part.

Then he would take it off.

Then he would load the next part.

Did that just happen to my job?

Because, that’s what I do now.

I don’t make the Google Ads myself anymore. I have robots that make them. I just feed the input material and monitor the output.

Did my job just go through the same transition that my fathers did two decades ago?

Is my job now just managing a robot that does my work and thinking for me?

Is my job is just to tell it what to do, hit “allow” a bunch of times, tell the robot when they made mistake and then wait for the robot to fix it.

But how long will the robot even need me to do that?

The robot will be able to check it’s work better than I can. It will be able to feed it more inputs faster than I can.

I’m generally a Techno Optimist as they call it. I think technology has been amazing for humanity.

But every once in awhile I wake up with a little fear. And today was one of those days…

What are you feeling about AI? Has it impacted your job yet?

Leave a comment

Around 1979, Dr. Robin Warren and Barry Marshall started noticing these spiral-shaped bacteria while doing stomach biopsies of patients with gastritis.

Then a crazy thing happened: The Easter Breakthrough.

In 1982, a lab technician accidentally left their samples in the incubator for five days over the Easter holiday instead of the two-day standard at the time. This mistake allowed enough time for the H. pylori colonies to grow and appear.

By 1983, Marshall had isolated the bacteria and found that it was present in 100% of the patients they tested who had ulcers.

They had discovered the cause of ulcers.

They presented their findings at a conference in Brussels. Their hope was that they had discovered a cure for an extremely painful disease that sentenced patients to a lifetime of eating bland foods and antacid pills.

Marshall presented his findings at the conference in Brussels and the crowd celebrated his massive accomplishment. He received a standing ovation, he was Time’s Person of the Year, millions of patients around the globe were cured, and Marshall was celebrated as a hero.

Wait, I’m sorry, I got that wrong.

The medical community viciously attacked him, saying that he was a “young nobody from Perth” who had no reputation, and senior doctors even called his theory “reckless and preposterous.” They said the stomach is a sterile environment and that no bacteria could survive in that acidic environment.

Another group within the medical establishment believed that almost all diseases were “repressed emotional responses.” They said: “The critical factor in the development of ulcers is the frustration associated with the wish to receive love.”

They literally thought ulcers were caused by people not getting enough love.

Marshall was devastated, frustrated, and a bit angry that no one was listening to him, looking at the evidence, or—more importantly—helping the patients.

Marshall attempted to perform studies to prove his theory, but the medical establishment kept throwing up roadblocks. In order to run a human test, he had to reproduce the results in animals first, but that didn’t work in this case.

So what did he do? He tested it on the “only ethical subject”: himself.

In 1984, Marshall took the bacteria from an infected patient and drank it himself!

After three days, he developed nausea and halitosis (extreme bad breath) because the bacteria neutralized his stomach acid. By day eight, an endoscopy showed massive stomach inflammation and colonies of the bacteria H. pylori.

By day 10, the endoscopy found a raw, red, inflamed stomach lining. By day 14, Marshall began to fear for his health and started a therapy of antibiotics and bismuth.

Marshall had just proven that H. pylori caused gastritis, and gastritis eventually causes ulcers.

But even after the experiment, the medical establishment wouldn’t surrender or change course!

In 1985, he successfully published his self-experiment in the Medical Journal of Australia. But it was largely ignored.

For a decade, ulcer victims had started talking about an “underground cure” called “the Marshall Treatment.” This was basically antibiotics.

It wasn’t for another full decade (1994) until the National Institutes of Health officially stated that most ulcers were caused by H. pylori and should be treated with antibiotics.

This change effectively killed the billion-dollar market for long-term antacid maintenance, which Marshall later called “the ultimate satisfaction.”

And it wasn’t for another decade until Marshall received the Nobel Prize in 2005.

Today, about half of the decline in stomach cancer is attributed to Marshall’s discovery.

Marshall’s discovery was ignored for a decade. What was the impact of that? Let’s look at some numbers.

At that time, about 700,000 people died from stomach cancer per year. Let’s say just a modest 25% of those could be saved by Marshall’s solution of “Screen and Treat” with antibiotics.

That means that at least 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 people may have been saved if Marshall’s discovery had been recognized earlier.

Thankfully, in 2005, Marshall and his colleague Robin Warren were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

Because of Marshall and Warren’s work, the World Health Organization (WHO) now classifies H. pylori as a carcinogen. This discovery also sparked the first “antibiotic cure” for a cancer. A rare type of stomach tumor called MALT lymphoma can often be completely cured just by taking antibiotics to kill the bacteria.

I love this story because it’s a perfect case study in how the “experts” can be dead wrong for decades. It’s a classic case of “appeal to authority,” where “experts” dismissed the correct answer, not because of fundamental truth, but only because Marshall was not a part of their Tribe. He wasn’t an “expert”.

It’s a reminder that people that change the world and make massive discoveries are often considered heretics, stupid, evil, or worse.

The establishment chose to believe ulcers were caused by a “lack of love” rather than a bacteria because their dogma was profitable and comfortable.

It is another reminder that the system isn’t built to find the truth. It is built to protect itself and if you want to do something great or different, it could take you decades of being called a monster before anyone ever believes you. Just ask Alan Turing or Galileo.

I’m very sorry for the lack of updates lately. Santa brought our 7 year old a ATV 4-wheeler for Christmas and I flipped it and broke 3 ribs. I’m recovering now but it was a rough patch there. Thank you for your patience!

Leave a comment

Share

Real verification comes from outcomes. If someone claims gravity pulls mass toward Earth’s center, drop a ball and see. Don’t just ask the professor if gravity exists.

I’m baffled why we keep believing people who are constantly wrong.

Like predicting we will run out of oil in 20 years, then 20 years pass, and it hasn’t. You shouldn’t trust that person anymore. But we do.

Or claiming an education reform will improve test scores, but scores plummet.

Or claiming tariffs will skyrocket inflation, and it doesn’t. Stop trusting them.

Or invading a foreign country will protect us from a threat and it turns out the threat was a lie.

Or that a healthcare reform will reduce our costs, but they increase.

They keep being wrong. But they keep getting invited back to make predictions!

Experts and models don’t matter. What happened does.

This applies to all sides.

To be clear: Being wrong once isn’t a life sentence. That’s unfair. That would prevent learning.

But making the same prediction for years, getting proven wrong repeatedly, never apologizing, then doubling down on the disproven claim? That’s unforgivable.

It’s insanity.

I see it every time I make the mistake of turning on the news: The same career-long failures doubling down, moving goalposts.

They think we’re stupid. And given how we keep listening, they might be right.

—

This is why it’s so stupid to debate these things - yet that is almost all you see in political talks.

It’s two idiots debating some untestable prediction about the future that may never come. They yell at each other claiming they are certain of what will happen in the future… then idiotically they never come back to test what actually happened.

They just move on to the next pointless argument.

But, betting solves this.

Anytime someone is trying to debate you about something… ask them to frame it into a testable bet instead.

You’ll find that in almost all cases, the debate will disappear. Becauase they aren’t looking for truth. They are looking for a safe fight. A nerf warriror. They want to pretend they are in battle but without any real risk.

They just want to _feel_ like they are right.

They don’t actually care if they are factually right.

And when they get to make policies that we all have to live with, we all suffer.

Share

Leave a comment

“There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’

To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

But here is my version…

A man is walking a new piece of property he recently acquired when he comes across a fence that seems out of place and unnecessary. The man begins removing the fence, and soon the nice elderly woman next door approaches him and asks, “What is the purpose of that fence you are taking down?” The man replies, “It serves no purpose, so I’m clearing it away.”

The woman replies, “It sure looks like someone took a lot of time, care, and resources to erect that fence. Are you certain you know its purpose before you set out to destroy it?”

The man grows frustrated that this stranger is telling him how to manage his new property. Showing his frustration, he replies, “Please mind your own business and allow me to improve my property.” The lady shakes her head and returns to her house.

But the next June, they awaken to find their crops trampled. A bug that only spawns between June and July had reappeared, flooding their fields. And when the rabbits, raccoons, and other critters came to eat them, they trampled the entire crop, destroying the family’s income for that year.

When I was younger, I wanted to reform everything. I would come across a fence and want to destroy it. But the fence most likely served a greater purpose that I was unaware of. Tearing down the fence could result in unintended consequences in the future.

Think about when you come across a stop sign that seems pointless. Maybe it was erected because of repeated fatal accidents at that intersection over the years.

Think about the new “boss” at work that comes in and tries to “fix” everything but is actually destroying decades of progress and improvements that the previous team only learned through the scar tissue of their experiences. (This explains exactly how I felt after we sold Liquid Web and the new guys came in and changed everything! Only now, 10 years later, are they realizing that may have made a mistake.)

There is another recent example that sticks out to me and that all parents deal with and something that caused massive harm to thousands, maybe millions, of kids.

Around the year 2000, a committee of pediatricians came across a proverbial fence. Parents were feeding their children cows milk, eggs, peanuts and fish for thousands of years. The pediatricians were trying to reduce allergies, which can sometimes be very severe, in their young patients.

The pediatricians convened a committee and came up with the “1, 2, 3 rule”. It was their “expert opinion” that parents should delay cows milk until age 1, eggs until age 2, nuts and fish until age 3.

This was a massive change for parents and a large educational campaign commenced with pediatricians everywhere warning their patients to avoid these foods

or risk allergies in their children.

So what was the result? In 2000, the rate of peanut allergies in kids was about .4% and severe peanut allergy was extremely rare. Within 2 years, the rate had doubled to .8%. Today, the rate is about 2% or more. But most troubling, the rate of severe peanut allergy and death has skyrocketed. Which is why schools and daycares have to treat peanuts as if they are a biological weapon and ban them everywhere.

By removing what seemed like a fence, natural early exposure, experts created an epidemic of food allergies that harmed an entire generation of kids.

It’s easy to laugh at the mistakes of past experts with the benefit of hindsight. But the truth is, we are all standing in fields full of old fences. Some are wise, some are useless, some are harmful to leave standing, and some are dangerous to tear down. The lesson of Chesterton’s Fence is not to avoid change. It is to stop, ask why something exists, and understand the scar tissue that built it before you swing the hammer. History shows us clearly that rushing to remove a fence without knowing its purpose often makes things worse, not better.

If you enjoyed this all I ask is that you tell me, or share it with a friend. Thank you!

Leave a comment

Share

Today marks two years since I started serving on the Haslett School Board.

It also marks about a decade of my fascination with education in the United States.

I consider myself lucky to be in Haslett. We’re not perfect, and COVID definitely impacted our kids, but our academic performance has been stronger than almost all of the surrounding communities.

Especially compared to Holt, where I graduated. I say this with sadness, not superiority. Holt has not been doing well lately.

This journey has taken me deep into the world of education. I’ve asked hard questions like, why did schools move away from using phonics instruction to teach reading?

Books like The Knowledge Gap and podcasts like Sold a Story helped me understand the system, and more importantly, helped me intervene to teach our 7-year-old how to actually read.

I also became a Certified School Board Member through MASB, which opened my eyes to how school districts really operate, the trade-offs, the complexity, the constraints.

One of the most inspiring examples I’ve found is what people call the Mississippi Miracle.

In 2013, Mississippi ranked 49th in 4th grade reading scores. By 2022, they were 21st overall, and top 5 in the country for Black, low-income, and special education students. They focused on direct instruction, phonics, teacher training, and retention policies. It worked.

All of that has been fascinating.

But nothing has impressed me as much as Alpha School.

What Is Alpha School?

Alpha School is a high-end private school, built from the ground up like a product, designed to make school awesome for kids. At the center is a powerful learning engine they call, Time Back.

Students come in and spend just two hours a day with the AI-powered tutor. This tutor delivers direct instruction, constantly adapting based on what the student needs. As Joe puts it, your age grade and your knowledge grade are two totally different things.

The system teaches to mastery, not to the average. Every lesson is personalized, every gap is closed. Students learn 10 times faster, and consistently perform in the top 1% nationally. The real unlock is time back.

With core academics finished in two hours, students have four more hours each day to focus on “life skills” workshops. Getting their Time Back is a huge motivation for the students.

Life skills workshops include things like leadership, financial literacy, public speaking, entrepreneurship projects like running a food truck, robotics, sports, and chess tournaments. The rest of the day is team-based, project-based, and fun. It’s not screen time — it’s real-world preparation. As Joe says, the key to motivation is progress and choice, and Alpha delivers both.

Here’s how Alpha works, and why it’s blowing my mind.

Alpha’s 5 Core Commitments

1. Kids Must Love School
   Not tolerate it: love it. Alpha students are asked, would you rather go to school or go on vacation? Last year some of their high schoolers said, can we skip summer break because we don’t want to stop. That kind of love.

2. Kids Must Learn 10x Faster
   Alpha has built a two-hour academic model using AI and learning science. Students spend two hours a day with their AI tutor, and that’s it. Their academic performance is in the top 1% nationally. It’s not that the kids are smarter, it’s that the model works better.

3. The Rest of the Day Is for Life
   With the academic work done in the morning, the rest of the day is for life skills. Workshops on leadership, public speaking, entrepreneurship, personal finance, and teamwork. Real skills, no busywork, no screens.

4. Guides Instead of Teachers
   Alpha doesn’t have traditional teachers. They have Guides. These adults are responsible for making sure kids love school, learn quickly, and grow as people. They don’t lecture. They coach, support, and hold students to high expectations.

5. High Standards Create Happy Kids
   This one is the most opposite of all. Alpha believes happiness comes from high standards, not low ones. Kids struggle, fail, cry, and then succeed. That builds real confidence and resilience. That’s the kind of happiness that lasts.

What Joe Discovered About Education

Joe is not an educator. He’s a systems guy. A product builder. Which means he noticed things that others missed.

Here are some of the biggest things Alpha has uncovered:

• Motivation is 90% of the solution
  The problem isn’t attention span or tech, it’s motivation. When school only takes two hours a day, every kid wants to learn. Giving kids their time back is the unlock.

• Swiss cheese knowledge doesn’t work
  In the traditional model, kids move onto the next grade even if they only understand 70% of the material. That creates holes in knowledge and those holes lead to failure later. Alpha on the other hand, enforces mastery. Students must get over 90% before they move on.

• “A” students can still be behind
  Alpha has seen students with 4.0 GPAs at other schools, who are actually two or three years behind in core subjects. The old system rewards compliance, not mastery. One girl had a 740 on the SAT. She went back to third grade math, fixed the foundation, and scored a 790.

• Catching up takes less time than you think
  A student who is three years behind can often catch up in 60 hours. One subject, one grade level, done in 20 to 30 hours. It’s not magic. It’s just focus and a system that works.

• Every kid can be top 10%
  Research shows that with a tutor and mastery-based learning, average students can outperform 90% of their peers. Alpha believes 95% of eighth graders in America could be top 10% performers with the right system.

• IQ doesn’t limit outcomes anymore
  In the old model, your performance was tied to your IQ. At Alpha, it’s tied to your effort. That shift makes achievement a decision, not a destiny.

• AI unlocks personalized learning
  Alpha uses generative AI to build custom lessons based on each kid’s interests and knowledge gaps. They’ve even taught World War I through Taylor Swift metaphors. That’s not a joke. It’s real.

Why It Matters

Alpha isn’t just a different school, it’s a different category.

This isn’t an experiment. It’s a product. Built with intention. Measured by results. Scaled with clarity.

They’re opening new campuses. They’re launching specialty models like the Texas Sports Academy for D1-bound athletes. They’re not slowing down.

We need more conversations about this. More public awareness. More experiments. Because what we’re doing isn’t working. Not for kids, not for parents, not for teachers.

Alpha feels like the opposite of what we’ve accepted as normal.

And maybe that’s what we need most.

— What do you think about Alpha School?

Leave a comment

Share Year Of The Opposite - Travis Stoliker's Substack

First I gave the standard BS response.

“Advice is always worth less than you pay for it, so this is probably useless. But my advice is, it’s not what you make, it’s what you spend. I love this quote: “you’ve already reached the goals that you promised would make you happy”. Don’t keep up with the joneses.”

But that was crap. It was fortune cookie wisdom that wasn’t helpful at all. I wanted to try to do better by them and give them a practical roadmap. So here it is:

“Actually I thought about this more. I didn’t give you tangible advice. Now I’m going to. This is what you do TODAY.

Pick the person in your life that you love and respect that you consider “rich”. Approach them and say: “I’ve always admired how you handle money and I’ve been struggling. Would you take me under your wing and teach me how to be rich?”

I have never met anyone that would turn down that request.

Next: give them EVERYTHING. Your credit card bills statements, your dark secrets, your mortgage, your W2 statements, your last 3 year tax returns.

Then commit to them that you’ll do whatever they say for 5 years.

Have them put you on a budget. Have them look at your skills and your work opportunities.

Have them coach you on interviewing for jobs.

Ask them to introduce you to other successful people.

I am confident this will get you to where you want to be in 5 years.

With one caveat: you must follow their advice and pick the right person to emulate.

I wish you nothing but success!

Bonus tip: never take money advice from people that don’t have it. And from my experience, often times the person driving a beat down F150 has $500k in the bank while the dude in a suit driving the BMW has $500k in debt.

Money SHOUTS.

Wealth whispers.”

That’s it. It’s simple. But it’s not easy. But anyone can do it.

I’m curious: What advice would you give them?

Leave a comment

We alerted the police and shared our video footage in hopes it would help track down the thief. And, as is common now, we posted the videos to our local Facebook groups to warn neighbors and see if anyone else had been hit.

It turns out the suspect may have broken into hundreds of cars, covering multiple miles from at least 3:30 a.m. to 5:30 a.m.

Most of the comments we received were supportive and helpful. People tried to identify the suspect and reminded others to stay alert.

But there’s a different kind of response that shows up too. “Maybe lock your doors and keep valuables out.” “When will people learn to lock their doors?”

Those types of comments got a lot of likes, and they’re not uncommon.

When our window was broken at Slice by Saddleback and the cash register stolen, people said we deserved it because we hadn’t left the till open to show there was no cash inside.

A few things are true here. Yes, we could have locked our doors. That’s correct.

But it’s also true that it’s not our fault someone tried to steal from us.

This is called moral inversion. It’s similar to the old lines like, “She shouldn’t have dressed that way if she didn’t want to get attacked,” or “You shouldn’t walk through that neighborhood if you don’t want to get robbed.”

It’s victim blaming. It flips the morality around. It implies that unless we secure every item and lock every door, we are responsible for the actions of people who break the law. That kind of thinking erodes trust.

And trust is what community depends on.

When I walk down the street with my kids, I trust that drivers won’t run us over. When I eat at a restaurant, I trust that nobody put something disgusting in my food. We rely on each other, every day, in thousands of small ways.

A world without trust is a world where we wall ourselves off from each other, where we assume everyone is a threat. That’s not the world I want to live in, and it’s not what I want for my family.

I want us to live in a high trust society where we believe in the goodness of our neighbors. I want to live in a world where our kids can ride their bike to school and eat halloween candy from their friends and neighbors.

I’m willing to take that risk because even though there are monsters out there, their numbers are small. And I’d rather live life giving the benefit of the doubt to the amazing people all around me, even the strangers, than assuming that everyone is a monster out to attack me.

Yes, I might get let down now and then. A window might get broken. Something might get taken. But if the cost of trust is an occasional setback, it’s still far cheaper than letting fear run my life.

A few bad nights aren’t worth poisoning all the good ones. I’d rather face the risk of a broken window than live with a broken worldview.

Leave a comment

Share

Share Year Of The Opposite - Travis Stoliker's Substack

I wrote this on the day Brady was born, but I didn’t feel comfortable releasing it until now. I’m embarrassed to admit how often I write a post but I’m too much of a coward to release it because of fear. Anyway, here it is…

On Parenting, Policy, and Trust

I’m running into this again and again. I’m being told how to raise my kid by people who speak with total confidence but don’t have the evidence to back it up. First it was postpartum exercise. Then co-sleeping. Then newborn sleep, feeding, meds, positions. All of it.

Take the postpartum workout restriction. Laken was told not to exercise for six weeks after birth. No nuance. Just a flat-out rule. But when I dug into it, I couldn’t find any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) proving that intense exercise before six weeks postpartum causes harm. Most studies actually show that light to moderate activity within 2–4 weeks is not only safe but also beneficial, especially for mental health. The PAMELA trial, for example, found improved mood and no complications from early activity. Another study in Frontiers in Psychology showed reduced anxiety with postpartum aquatic exercise starting around 4–6 weeks. No RCTs showed harm from earlier or more intense activity. None.

The six-week rule is based on tradition and expert opinion, not hard data. It reminds me of old hip replacement protocols, when doctors used to keep patients immobile for weeks. That delayed healing. Now, patients get up within hours. What if postpartum care is stuck in the same outdated thinking?

Then there’s co-sleeping. We were told that if we sleep with Brady, he could die. Period. Again, it sounded final. But when I dug deeper, I found that most of the data comes from unsafe environments, sofas, intoxicated parents, loose bedding, or premature babies. I couldn’t find a single documented case where a full-term baby died while sleeping in a safe bed with a healthy, sober, non-smoking, alert parent in a safe setup. Not one. Yet we’re treated like we’re reckless just for asking the question.

The deeper I look, the more I realize these aren’t solid, research-backed facts. They’re guidelines written by committees, made for the lowest common denominator, passed off as “science.”

They’re based on risk reduction for a system that assumes most people won’t take care of themselves, won’t ask questions, won’t think for themselves. So they make rules to cover the masses and act like they apply to everyone.

They treat me like I’m stupid, reckless, or drunk. I’m not. I’m a fully capable, sober, alert father. And I want real information, not patronizing lectures and oversimplified warnings. I want the truth. Not broad strokes built for fear and liability.

It feels like collectivism disguised as care. A nanny state in a lab coat. Disconnected from tradition, from cultural wisdom, from what parents have done for thousands of years. And it leaves no space for personal responsibility, nuance, or trust.

I don’t want rules made for people who aren’t paying attention.

I’m paying attention. I’m asking questions. I’m choosing to be fully present.

That should count for something.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

At about 461 acres, it is actually larger than most lakes in Michigan. When you look at the distribution of inland lakes statewide, the vast majority are under 100 acres, so by comparison, Lake Lansing is in the upper tier of size. It is our one and only lake. Obviously, I am biased because I live on it, but here is my bold three-point plan to improve the perception of the lake, increase its usability, return it to a more natural state, and increase property values around it by 50 percent.

1. Making Lake Lansing’s Pathways Safe for Everyone

First, improving the safety of the running and bike path around the lake. In Haslett, we are blessed with an absolutely amazing park system and River Trail. I think the North Lake Lansing Park is one of the most beautiful in the area, maybe in the entire state, and I think it is completely missed by most people. The trails through that park are glorious, and you go through at least two or three different types of forests when you're out there. It's absolutely spectacular.

But one area where we need improvement is the running and bike path around the lake. A lot of it is on Lake Drive, and while it's a beautiful drive, it’s incredibly risky. You basically run/walk on the shoulder of the road and the shoulders are not very big, and it’s very windy, so drivers often don't see the runner until the last minute.

I joke with my friends that running is probably the thing that will save my life, but it will also be the thing that kills me, because I'll probably get hit by a car on that run. It's a joke, but there's definitely some truth in it.

There’s been more than one time that I've looked up and seen a driver coming at me, distracted and not looking at the road.

The other issue is that the path isn't safe for children, so we can't let our seven-year-old ride around the lake because it's just too dangerous. If we expanded the bike lane and maybe put in some barriers between it and the road, I think that would increase the use of the path. It would make it more accessible for children and people with disabilities. And that connection point would allow it to link up with the River Trail, Lake Lansing Park North, Lake Lansing Park South, and many other parks.

It would also connect to the larger River Trail, giving access to East Lansing, Lansing, Old Town, Holt, Mason, & pretty much everywhere in the area.

2. Dredge Lake Lansing to an Average Depth of 12 Feet

Next point: dredging Lake Lansing. Lake Lansing is a notoriously treacherous lake because it has so many shallow points. The marinas in the area joke about how many people damage the propeller on their boat on Lake Lansing. It has been dredged in the past, but I think we should do it again. Because Lake Lansing has an average depth between four and ten feet, light penetrates all the way to the bottom, which allows weeds to grow. That means the lake has to be treated to kill off the weeds and vegetation to make it usable.

If we were to dredge Lake Lansing to an average depth of 12 to 15 feet, light wouldn't be able to penetrate all the way to the bottom, meaning that weeds wouldn't grow as much, and we wouldn’t have to treat the lake so often. I believe this would help return it to a more natural state and reduce the use of hard chemicals that tend to accumulate at the bottom of the lake.

One challenge for dredging, besides the cost, is deciding where to put the dirt. One suggestion might be to create an island in the middle of the lake with the dredged material, keeping it within the same lake community. This would increase the usability of the lake and make it even more amazing. I have to confess, I really think Lake Lansing is amazing, and it’s a bummer how much of a bad rap it gets.

Because Lake Lansing only has a few narrow channels of deep water, speedboats generally accumulate and go back and forth between the South Park swimming area and the north end. This creates congestion, because all the larger boats and those engaging in water sports tend to operate in the same area. It also means that oftentimes boats cannot go the legally required counterclockwise direction around the lake, especially when towing a skier, because it’s simply not possible.

3. Attract Younger Residents and Visitors to the Lake

Once those two things are done, I think this would attract more young people from surrounding communities and from MSU to use the lake. Within a few generations, the general negative perception about the lake could be replaced with a positive one. That would mean more people wanting to use it, and more people wanting to live on it.

I think these three steps would conservatively increase the property values around the lake by 50%. They would make the lake much more desirable, more natural, more beautiful, and more usable for a wider variety of water sports. And they would increase water quality because of fewer weeds, which would require fewer chemical treatments.

Leave a comment

So five years later, what happened?

The tax brought in new money at first. It raised $231 million in 2021, $293 million in 2022, and $310 million in 2023. That was new additional tax money. Everything looked good at first.

But with the new revenue, Seattle spent heavily on affordable housing projects, poured millions into climate programs and small business grants, and then started using large chunks of the tax to plug holes in the general fund when other revenues fell short. They burned through the money as fast as it came in, expanding spending instead of fixing the budget.

But now Seattle is facing a $247 million budget shortfall over the next two years. As KIRO 7 reported: “This is catastrophic.”

Why? Because companies responded by leaving. Amazon moved 25,000 jobs to Bellevue. Meta cut 3,600 jobs. Expedia cut 1,500. Other companies froze hiring or quietly moved out.

Seattle taxed its economic engine, and the engine left.

Instead of using the new tax to stabilize the budget, the city just spent more. Now that tax revenue is flattening, the spending binge is catching up with them.

If this continues, the payroll tax could shrink enough to flip into a net loss within two to five years.

But what about the main goal — reducing homelessness?

In 2019, Seattle and King County counted 11,199 people experiencing homelessness. By 2024, that number had jumped to 16,868. That is a 51 percent increase since before the tax passed.

So to sum it up — Seattle raised taxes, spent every dollar of new revenue, drove out jobs, blew up its budget, and made homelessness worse.

So what can we/I learn from this?

Raising tax rates does not guarantee more revenue or better results. This is one of the biggest misconceptions that I had for my entire life. In many cases raising taxes actually drives away jobs and weakens the economy and ultimately reduces the tax revenue in the long run. This is very counterintuitive but Seattle just proved it. Again.

Persuasion to fear is rampant right now. People try to burden you with their anxiety and fear, as if sharing their unrest brings them relief. There is a simple test to guard against this.

If a friend is pushing you to get super upset or angry about some issue but they don’t grasp the specific details, just the headline, or can’t explain the opposing side’s view, or can’t explain the issue simply, or worst of all they get mad when you ask for details, pause and reflect. This person is struggling, caught in their own fear, and trying to persuade you to join them. As the old saying goes, misery loves company.

People can become addicted to fear, and it’s one of the hardest habits to break. It’s also incredibly contagious. When someone tries to sway you this way, stay calm and say: That sounds bad, but I’m ignorant on this topic. Can you explain it simply, with a bit more specificity? What was it like before, and what’s changing now? What are the trade-offs involved in this decision? What would the opposing side of your argument say about this issue?

By holding to reason, you shield yourself from their passion. Let no one’s fear overtake your mind, for only a soul anchored in reality endures unshaken.

The excitement has been unreal, and we’re fired up.

Last night, Joe and I locked in the final details—including some new educational content we know you’re going to love. We also secured the venue: the newly remodeled One North in East Lansing (formerly Reno’s East). We’ve got a private room, a big screen, great food, and drinks. It’s going to be a blast.

We designed this course around 3 goals:

1. Deliver insane value—so you walk away excited to show everyone what you’ve learned.

2. Give you practical tools—so you can start using AI in your daily life immediately (just like we do).

3. Make it fun as hell—you’ll leave feeling like you just watched the best movie of your life.

We’re down to the last 3 spots!

If you’re thinking about signing up, now’s the time. You can get the details and register here!

After sharing a few example videos from the course, people have been going wild. First is a video of Joe teaching you about the brand new Chat GPT 4.0 image model. It. Is. Amazing!

Here are a few examples of people making use of the training already!

Cindy Spencer in Arizona made this awesome logo for her Family Therapy Business.

She sent us this note: “The final designs turned out beautifully, and I’m incredibly grateful for your guidance in bringing my vision to life. Your knowledge and willingness to help did not go unnoticed, and I feel lucky to have had your assistance throughout this project.”

My 6 year old son made this amazing Snake game!

I used a Custom GPT and the new Chat GPT 4.0 Image Model to create these mock-up Facebook ads.

Our friend Derek runs McDonald Ford in Freeland and made this awesome graphic!

And our friend Greg used our training to help his business partner and wife make a graphic for their newsletter and helped brainstorm the newsletter content! (Make sure to check out NECTAR!)

“AI for the win tonight. Wrote a sample newsletter for office manager and Jess to see how easy/quick we can add element to customer engagement.

Did a quick rendering with multiple photos to make a quick image for example.

Any haters on AI are just not educated on how to use it, and they need to see my friends and experts Travis and Joe next Saturday to elevate to the next level. This has been a blast.”

These are just some of the things you’ll learn on Saturday! We can’t wait to see you.

Travis & Joe

Leave a comment

• How to use AI to create a poem for your grandson

• How to use AI to review a lease for you or your family member

• How to use AI to create a logo for your business or side project

• How to use AI to plan a vacation customized to your interests

• How to use AI to code your own version of Tetris! (Seriously!)

  ---

I was recently at a dinner with several of my moms cousins. They are all successful business executives who have retired and they were discussing how they wanted to get started with Artificial Intelligence but didn’t know where to begin. I mentioned some of the things that I take for granted about using AI and their minds were pretty blown.

I mentioned this to some of my friends and they all said that they were interested in learning more about AI too.

So, to solve this problem, I have teamed up with my good friend and AI expert, Joe Dearman to offer a 3 hour hands-on in person AI training. It is Saturday, April 5 · 1 - 4pm EDT.

We are still nailing down the location but it will be in the greater lansing area. We are limiting the first class to 30 attendees. 7 spots are already gone.

This training is for beginners and intermediate AI users. You do NOT need to have experience with AI to attend. But you do have to be relatively computer and smartphone savvy. Which just means you need to be able to download apps onto your phone and work with them easily.

This class is designed for my family members that are interested in learning about AI but they don’t want to wade through the vast number of Youtube videos and how-to Google searches. If you are looking for a hands-on in-person session to have your mind blown about the practical ways you can use AI today - this is your class!

WHAT YOU’LL LEARN:

• What is AI? (Hint: It’s not magic, but it sure feels like it.)

• How to use AI in your daily life (Save time, make better decisions, automate tasks.)

• How to set up and install AI tools (No technical background required.)

• How to prompt AI to get exactly what you need (Stop getting bad answers—get precision.)

• How to use AI for work (Automate emails, reports, research—work smarter, not harder.)

• How to use AI to generate images (Create stunning visuals with a few words.)

• How to process long documents & summarize key points (Turn hours of reading into minutes.)

• How to use AI for learning & education (AI tutors? Yes, they exist—and they’re amazing.)

• How to use Voice AI (AI that talks back intelligently.)

• How to do deep research with AI (Find the truth, cut through the noise.)

• How to verify news stories with AI (Detect misinformation like a pro.)

• How to use ChatGPT, Grok, and other top AI tools (Which AI tool does what best?)

WHO IS THIS FOR?

• Anyone who has heard of AI but doesn’t know where to start.

• Professionals who want to work smarter, not harder.

• People who don’t want to get left behind in the AI revolution.

• Business owners who want a competitive edge.

WHO’S TEACHING THIS?

Travis Stoliker – That’s me! Serial entrepreneur (Liquid Web, TechSmith, Saddleback BBQ, Social Ops, Gyroaster (The World’s Best Marshmallow Roaster!), Growth Factory). Scaled companies, built tech products, and now showing you how to leverage AI.

Joseph Dearman – Product designer of award-winning tools (Coach's Eye, Camtasia). Using AI to build professional AI-powered products, games, and passionate about maximizing impact with AI.

So seriously, what is so cool about AI? Why should I do this? Check this out…

Tutorial: How to create a logo for my business or side project in less than a minute.

Tutorial: How to write a beautiful poem for my grandson’s birthday

Tutorial: Use AI to plan your vacation trip itinerary personalized to your preferences

Tutorial: How to use AI to review a lease, summarize it, point out problem areas, and negotiate for a better lease on your behalf. Save thousands of dollars on legal fees!

Now for an Advanced Tutorial! How you can use AI to Create your own Games & Applications! Code your own Tetris in a few minutes.

Register Now for: Artificial Intelligence Training & Learn AI in 3 Hours.

• Sat, Apr 5, 2025, 1pm to 4:00pm

• Special offer for Year Of The Opposite Subscribers! Get $100 off the registration fee if you use the Promo Code: YOTO at checkout!

  Register For the AI Training Class!

Leave a comment

Share

It got me thinking about something: We have about twenty million people in this country that are mentally ill and a subset of them have homicidal rage and access to weapons.

When a person with these conditions hears the media, pundits, and friends convince them that someone is a Nazi - What are they expected to do?

How many of them will see this as an instruction? After all, I think everyone can agree we would have been better off if Hitler were stopped before he was able to carry out his horrific acts.

It seems incredibly predictable that this rhetoric will result in a portion of those that hear it to commit violence and potentially even attempt murder. Could there be consequences for this?

I should be clear. I’m pretty close to a free speech absolutist. The government should not censor its citizens speech in anyway besides for the extremely limited ways that are defined by the law and precedent. I even go so far as to think that “hate speech” laws are dangerous and a violation of the first amendment when they are limited by the government. As abohorent as I find hate speech, I think the remedy is not limits on speech, it’s more and better speech. Afterall, who is going to be the judge of what is exactly considered hate speech?

So when I talk about this “liability”, I want to be clear. I am not talking about government limiting speech. As awful as it is, I think people should be legally allowed to call others Nazis’. I disagree with it unless it’s an accurate term. But it should be allowed under the law.

Actually, the reason I joined the ACLU when I was 16 years old was because the ACLU, led by Jewish lawyer Aryeh Neier defended the free speech rights of neo-Nazis who sought to march in Skokie, Illinois, a town with many Holocaust survivors, arguing that the First Amendment protects even the most hateful speech, despite overwhelming public opposition.

This blew my mind that someone would believe in the constitution and the principle of Free Speech so much that they would literally fight for their enemy. It’s one of my strongest memories from that time of my life.

So, when I lay out this legal case. It is NOT advocating for the limiting of free speech by the government.

But there is another legal standard. It’s called Civil Liability for Incitement.

Civil Liability is much different than criminal liability.

Criminal incitement is prosecuted by the government, can lead to jail time or fines, and requires proving that speech intentionally and imminently encouraged unlawful action, while civil incitement is a lawsuit between private parties, where the penalty is financial damages, not imprisonment, and the standard of proof is typically lower.

Here are some examples of Civil Incitement:

• Rice v. Paladin Enterprises (1997) – A publisher was held liable for printing Hit Man, a book that gave explicit instructions on how to commit murder. The court ruled that the book was not protected speech because it directly aided and abetted a crime.

• Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists (2002) – Anti-abortion activists were held liable for posting “wanted” posters of abortion doctors, which were ruled as inciting violence and true threats rather than protected speech.

• Braun v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine (1992) – Soldier of Fortune magazine was held liable for running a classified ad for a hitman, which led to a murder. The court ruled the ad was an incitement to crime and not protected by the First Amendment.

• National Organization for Women v. Scheidler (1998) – Anti-abortion protest leaders were found civilly liable under RICO laws for inciting and coordinating violent attacks on abortion clinics.

Repeatedly labeling someone a “Nazi”—particularly a public figure—crosses a dangerous line. While it may not meet the strict legal threshold for criminal incitement under U.S. law (e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio’s requirement of intent, likelihood, and immediacy), it can still be considered a form of civilly criminal incitement—speech that foreseeably incites unlawful acts, like violence, opening the door to civil liability.

The risk is not abstract; it’s rooted in the real-world consequences of such rhetoric, especially when amplified in a society grappling with widespread mental illness, weapon access, and historical triggers. Below, I’ll explain why this is a pressing issue, starting with the mental health crisis that makes this accusation uniquely perilous.

The Mental Illness Angle: A Trigger for America’s Unstable

America is in the midst of a mental health epidemic, and provocative language like “Nazi” can act as a spark in a powder keg of untreated illness. The numbers on this are wild and scary:

• Prevalence: According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), 52.9 million adults—about 21% of the U.S. adult population—had a mental illness in 2020. Of these, 14.2 million suffered from a serious mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or severe depression, which severely impairs functioning.

• Violence Risk: While most individuals with mental illness are not violent, a small subset is at heightened risk, particularly when untreated. The Treatment Advocacy Center reports that people with untreated SMI are involved in about 10% of U.S. homicides. With roughly 16,000 homicides annually, that’s approximately 1,600 incidents tied to untreated SMI each year.

• Specific Conditions: Certain disorders amplify this risk. For instance, individuals with schizophrenia—about 1% of the population, or 2.6 million adults—are six to eight times more likely to commit violent acts if untreated or if comorbid with substance abuse. This translates to a homicide rate of 0.3 per 1,000 person-years among this group, compared to 0.05 in the general population—potentially accounting for 780 homicides annually from schizophrenia alone.

Now, consider weapon access:

• Firearms: A study in the American Journal of Public Health found that 22% of those with SMI—roughly 3.1 million people—own a firearm. Even if we conservatively estimate that 10% of the 14.2 million with SMI have guns, that’s 1.42 million individuals blending severe mental illness with lethal means.

• Gaps in Oversight: Federal laws bar gun ownership for those adjudicated as mentally defective, but many with SMI fall through the cracks via private sales or loopholes, amplifying the danger.

Why does “Nazi” matter here? The term isn’t just an insult—it’s a historical and emotional trigger.

Nazism conjures images of genocide and tyranny, and popular culture often justifies violence against Nazis as heroic (think punching Hitler). For someone with untreated psychosis, paranoia, or delusional thinking—conditions affecting millions—the repeated public branding of a figure as a “Nazi” could be interpreted as a call to action. They might see it as a moral duty to eliminate this “threat.”

Let’s estimate the scale:

• If just 1% of the 14.2 million with SMI—142,000 people—are prone to violence under provocation, and 20% of them (a conservative firearm access rate) have guns, that’s 28,400 individuals who could be one inflammatory accusation away from acting.

• Narrow it further: Among the 2.6 million with schizophrenia, if 0.1%—2,600 people—are triggered by “Nazi” rhetoric, and half have weapons, that’s 1,300 potential lone actors.

This isn’t speculation—it’s a foreseeable risk. The concept of stochastic terrorism supports this: mass rhetoric can inspire random violence without direct orders. When media, celebrities, or protesters relentlessly call someone a “Nazi,” they’re rolling the dice with America’s mentally unstable population.

Legal Liability: Civil Consequences of Incitement

If this rhetoric leads to violence, those who spread it could face civil liability. In civil law, speech that foreseeably causes harm can result in damages, even if it’s not criminally actionable. The argument hinges on two principles:

• Foreseeability: Is it predictable that calling someone a “Nazi” could provoke a mentally ill person to attack? Given the mental health crisis, weapon access, and the term’s incendiary nature, the answer is yes. Courts have held defendants liable for foreseeable harm from speech—e.g., in Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. (1975), a radio station paid damages after its contest spurred a fatal crash.

• Causation: If a violent act follows this rhetoric, and the perpetrator cites it as inspiration (e.g., in a manifesto or social media), a causal link could be established. In today’s digital age, tracing influence is easier than ever.

Imagine a scenario: a public figure labeled a “Nazi” is attacked by someone with untreated schizophrenia who claims they acted to “stop Hitler.” The victim’s family could sue the media outlet, journalist, or protester who popularized the label, arguing their words were the proximate cause. Damages could include lost income, pain and suffering, or punitive awards—potentially millions for a high-profile target.

Why “Nazi” Isn’t Just Free Speech

Some might argue that “Nazi” is protected under the First Amendment as opinion or political critique, citing cases like Snyder v. Phelps (2011). But civil liability doesn’t require a criminal violation. Speech loses protection when it foreseeably incites harm, and “Nazi” isn’t mere hyperbole—it’s a loaded accusation with a violent subtext. Unlike calling someone a “jerk,” it implies an existential threat that mentally unstable individuals might act upon.

Another counterargument: mental illness isn’t the main driver of violence, and spotlighting it risks stigma. True, most mentally ill people aren’t violent—but the focus here is a specific subset, not the whole population. Ignoring this risk doesn’t negate it; it just leaves us unprepared.

Conclusion: A Line Crossed

Calling someone a “Nazi” isn’t just provocative— it could create a Civil Liability for Incitement with a clear mental illness trigger. In a nation where 52.9 million adults grapple with mental health, 14.2 million face serious conditions, and millions have weapons, this rhetoric is a loaded gun.

When it inspires violence—as history and psychology suggest it can—those who wielded it may face a courtroom reckoning. The government should not limit free speech besides for extremely narrow circumstances.

But civil penalties for Free speech can be harsh, and civil law draws the line at foreseeable harm. This isn’t a question of if, but when.

Let’s please ton down the rhetoric on both sides and save these loaded terms for people that really deserve them.

Leave a comment

“But there was a lifeguard on duty! How could this happen?”

This phenomenon is called the Peltzman Effect. It was popularized when automobile seatbelt laws didn’t reduce traffic deaths as much as expected. Why? Because drivers drove more recklessly, feeling safer.

Seems counterintuitive doesn’t it? Why would a great safety mechanism like a seatbelt not be completely positive?

It relates to another term called: “risk homeostasis” a theory that suggests people maintain a consistent level of risk by adjusting their actions.

In general, we each have an acceptable level of risk. Some people are very risk tolerant. Think of those people that rock climb “free solo” without any ropes thousands of feet in the air. While others are less tolerant of risk and can’t even get on top of their own roof.

In general, we all have an acceptable level or risk that we are willing to take. We keep that same level of risk even when something is made “safer”. That’s why some people actually ended up driving more recklessly when they felt more secure in their car protected by a seatbelt and airbag.

It’s a counterintuitive problem that demonstrates the complexity of the human condition.

My Favorite Study on Fatherhood:

One of my favorite studies that I found while trying to learn to be a good father was “What is the relationship between risky outdoor play and health in children? A systematic review.” When I grew up, playgrounds were made of metal, concrete, and shards of broken glass. (Okay maybe I’m being dramatic) But now, playgrounds are covered in foam padding, plastic everywhere, and kids aren’t even allowed to play Tag for fear of someone getting hurt.

While OF COURSE the rationale for this makes total sense! All of us want kids to be safe. But this study absolutely blew my mind.

What it found is that kids need to be unsafe. They need to have unsupervised play where they might get lost. They need to fall off the 10 foot slide and chip a tooth like I did in 4th grade. They need to roughhouse and clunk their heads together.

This study shows that all of those activities allow them to test their boundaries. To get hurt and recognize that their actions have consequences. And here’s the kicker—not only does risky play not lead to more injuries, it actually makes kids healthier.

• Kids who engage in risky outdoor play are more physically active and less sedentary (shocking, I know).

• Climbing up high? Turns out, it doesn’t lead to more fractures or more serious injuries.

• Rough-and-tumble play? Instead of making kids more aggressive, it actually helps them develop better social skills, especially for boys.

• Environments that encourage risky play lead to more creativity, more resilience, and more social interactions.

And it’s not just one study. This idea shows up over and over again in research.

A study by Sandseter & Kennair (2011) in Evolutionary Psychology makes a wild argument: risky play actually reduces fear and builds resilience. They looked at it from an evolutionary perspective—kids are wired to take risks as a way of learning how to manage danger. If you remove those opportunities, they don’t just grow up “safe”—they grow up unprepared. Worse, when they finally do encounter risk as teens or adults, they don’t know how to handle it. That’s how you get kids who go from padded playgrounds to reckless decision-making later in life like speeding when they get their first drivers license.

Then there’s Morrongiello & Lasenby-Lessard (2007) in Injury Prevention, which takes it even further. Their research suggests that too much safety can actually make kids worse at judging risk. If they never get the chance to take small, controlled risks when they’re young, they don’t develop the ability to assess danger properly. So when they do face an actual risky situation—one without the guardrails of a carefully designed playground—they don’t have the instincts to handle it safely.

The takeaway? Wrapping kids in bubble wrap doesn’t make them stronger. It makes them fragile. If you want kids to grow into capable, confident adults, you have to let them fall, scrape their knees, and figure out how to get back up. Not just because it toughens them up—but because it teaches them how the world actually works.

What kinds of risks are we misunderstanding as adults?

I got walking pneumonia last week and that meant I was stuck watching a bunch of TV. I watched the Netflix series Painkiller, which was fantastic by the way. (Albeit a little sad)

Painkiller explores the opioid crisis that destroyed the lives of millions. It focuses on how Purdue Pharmaceuticals got Oxycontin approved by the FDA. This got me thinking a lot about the Peltzman Effect.

When any of us takes a pill that is prescribed by our doctor, we just assume that it’s safe. We trust our doctors more than almost any other profession. Then on top of it, we trust that the FDA and the government has done their job and tested the medication.

We trust these professions so much that most of us rarely if ever ask questions about the product and we certainly never read the crazy long disclaimers that accompany the medication!

When I watched the characters in the show Painkiller, I felt so much sympathy for them. Many of them had stories that I had heard from personal friends and family. They got injured on the job or in a sport, they had pain that couldn’t be fixed, so their doctor prescribed them something that helped.

One pill everyday that miraculously solved the pain. Amazing!

But they were also told something somewhat unbelievable. Even though this pill is chemically very similar to Heroin, it doesn’t have risk of addiction! Wow! I can have my cake and eat it too.

I know some of the people that were tricked by this and they were led down a path towards never ending addiction. They put their faith in Purdue Pharma, the FDA, and their well intentioned Doctor that told them this information.

They trusted that the lifeguard on duty was doing their job.

They were able to suspend their own skepticism and believe something that is unbelievable. There are no pills without side effects. There are no absolutely safe chemicals - everything is poison depending upon the dose. Even too much water can kill you.

But I don’t think it’s the chemical that we need to fear. It’s our own brain and our risk perception that we need to recalibrate.

I think we could all benefit from being a little less trusting and a bit more skeptical. We shouldn’t be so quick to outsource our safety, or the safety of our family, the the lifeguard on duty. Because everyone makes mistakes. The 15 year old lifeguard makes mistakes. But so does the FDA.

This isn’t to undermine the importance of the FDA. Quite the contrary, this is simply to say, we must always take responsibility for our own safety.

There are two more products that I am quite worried about. One is the mass prescription of ADHD medication for children. The other is the mass adoption of drugs like Ozempic to cure weight loss. Again, I am NOT downplaying the massive breakthrough that these drugs provide to many. These are important drugs for many and they have hugely positive benefits.

But let’s please not completely suspend our skepticism.

Do we really, honestly believe, that in 20 years from now there will not be any negative side effects discovered from a drug that can somehow keep you skinny even though you survive on a diet of cupcakes and alcohol?

Let’s not kid ourselves. There is no free lunch. Lets just be a little careful here.

We can’t outsource our own safety to others. History shows, it doesn’t turn out well. Stay skeptical.

Leave a comment

Unlike socialism, which focuses on redistributing wealth, capitalism multiplies it. Take Peter Thiel’s $500,000 investment in Mark Zuckerberg in 2004. At the time, Thiel was the wealthier of the two. But as Facebook scaled, Zuckerberg became exponentially richer than Thiel—while Thiel still walked away vastly wealthier than before. That’s the power of investment: it creates more wealth for everyone involved, rather than just shifting it around.

The Difference Between Helping and Hurting

The problem with socialism—and even well-intentioned charity—is that it often weakens the very people it’s trying to help. Giving someone a fish feeds them for a day, but teaching them to fish feeds them for a lifetime. Yet capitalism takes it further—it builds the fishing industry, funding boats, bait companies, and supply chains that allow entire communities to sustain themselves indefinitely.

On the other hand, if we contrast that with TOMS Shoes’ “Buy One, Give One” model. The idea was simple: for every pair of shoes sold, they donated a pair to someone in need. It sounded great—but in practice, it wiped out local shoemakers in many African and Latin American countries. By flooding the market with free shoes, TOMS put local businesses out of work, leaving communities more dependent rather than self-sufficient. What seemed like generosity actually eroded economic independence—because giving isn’t always helping.

Charity Without Investment Creates Dependence

This doesn’t just happen on a macro level; it happens in personal relationships too. Think about a family member who struggles with addiction or gambling. Giving them money doesn’t fix their problem—it fuels it. Paying off their debts or covering their rent doesn’t make them more responsible—it teaches them that someone else will always bail them out.

Real help isn’t a handout; it’s an investment in transformation. Just like an entrepreneur needs mentorship, capital, and a path to self-sufficiency, struggling individuals need accountability, discipline, and real stakes in their own success. Without personal responsibility, no amount of outside aid will create lasting change.

The True Social Good of Capitalism

This is why capitalism isn’t just about making money—it’s about creating opportunity. When you invest in a person, a business, or a system, you’re not just providing resources—you’re building capacity. You’re giving people the ability to create, grow, and become self-sufficient rather than remain dependent.

The beauty of capitalism is that it aligns incentives and scales effort. It doesn’t just redistribute fish—it builds a fishing economy. It’s socialism reimagined—not as a static transfer of wealth, but as a system where success fuels more success.

The more we understand this, the more we can use capitalism to empower rather than enable—to build instead of just give. And that’s what makes it the only system of shared wealth that truly works.

Leave a comment

Share Year Of The Opposite - Travis Stoliker's Substack

My research project this week was about the microplastics we keep hearing about in our water bottles. As you read this one, please remember, absence of evidence isn’t the same as evidence of harm. I do NOT want to worry anyone. But with all the talk about plastics in our water, I thought it was a good time to explore the plastic pipes that are in many of our houses. This is what I found out.

We’ve all heard the concerns about microplastics in water bottles—especially when you leave them in a hot car. But here’s a twist: the water lines running through many modern American homes are now made of plastic, too. It’s called PEX (cross-linked polyethylene). And despite its widespread use, there are no large-scale, long-term human studies—or even randomized controlled trials—confirming whether PEX is 100% safe for our health.

Before you panic, keep in mind that the absence of evidence isn’t the same as evidence of harm. It just means research on PEX as a drinking water pathway hasn’t fully caught up with its popularity. Here’s the story so far:

A Quick History of PEX

• 1960s: PEX technology emerged, originally used for radiant floor heating in Europe.

• 1980s–1990s: U.S. building codes gradually allowed its use for potable water.

• 2000s: PEX gained traction as a flexible, freeze-resistant, and cost-effective alternative to copper or PVC.

By now, it’s the go-to solution for new builds and retrofits. Architects, plumbers, and homeowners alike praise its bendable nature, fewer connection points, and resistance to corrosion.

What the Studies Say

• Chemical Leaching: Laboratory tests have detected small amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), like MTBE, that can leach out of PEX into standing water (particularly when new). Researchers found these levels drop with regular use and flushing.

• Taste and Odor: Some people report a temporary plastic taste or odor from new PEX. Studies suggest it usually fades over time.

• Microplastics?: Most available data focus on chemical migration, not tiny plastic particles. Current regulatory checks haven’t flagged microplastics as a concern with PEX, but the research is still thin.

Regulatory Green Light

PEX is approved under NSF/ANSI 61, a standard that tests for any contaminants leaching into drinking water at levels above acceptable thresholds. It also meets ASTM specifications for durability and performance. Local codes rely on these certifications to ensure PEX is safe for installation.

Here’s the rub: certification is not the same as a 20-year population study. Instead, it involves lab-based testing against chemical limits. Many experts consider it sufficient. Others wonder what the unresearched long-term effects might be.

Where This Stands

• Widely Used, Light on Human Data: Millions of homes already have PEX, with very few reported issues. But we still lack large-scale, longitudinal health research tracking real-world outcomes over decades.

• Absence of Evidence ≠ Evidence of Harm: No data says PEX is dangerous. No data says it’s perfectly harmless. It’s simply a technology that outpaced in-depth human trials.

• Takeaway: If microplastics in water bottles worry you, it’s worth asking what other plastic pathways your drinking water flows through—and whether you’re comfortable with the relative unknowns.

Want to try a new perspective this week? Rethink your assumptions about what “safe” really means. Just because something passes today’s regulatory hurdles doesn’t guarantee a well of peer-reviewed, long-term RCT data. Sometimes we accept what’s proven to “work fine” without a definitive 40-year, double-blind experiment behind it.

That’s not necessarily bad—it’s just where we stand right now. If you’re feeling curious or concerned, do a little digging into how your home’s water system is built. It might surprise you how many modern houses rely on plastic from the curb to the kitchen sink.

But we also must keep in mind to always ask ourselves: “Compared to What?” Meaning, if we don’t want our water to be stored in or transported in Plastic, are we safer if it is transported in metal? Lead? (Flint?) Buckets? Rivers? All of these sources have concerns and contaminants of their own. I guess this is all to say, it’s complicated.

Stay curious. Stay positive.

-Travis

Further Reading

1. Residential Tap Water Contamination Following the Use of Crosslinked Polyethylene (PEX) Potable Water Pipes (Whelton et al., 2014)

2. Volatile Organic Components Migrating from Plastic Pipes (HDPE, PEX, and PVC) into Drinking Water (Skjevrak et al., 2003)

Leave a comment

Share

*This is my personal account of Bill Hamilton from my own personal memory. I’m sure that I have some of the details and facts wrong. I apologize for any errors

On December 15th, 2024, Bill Hamilton, the Founder of TechSmith died from a heart attack at the age of 77.

Bill Hamilton was the greatest entrepreneur of the Lansing area in this century. Arguably more.

He was a husband, a father, a veteran, a computer programmer, a Spartan, an amateur ham radio enthusiast, a competitive shooter, an avid reader, a history expert, a philanthropist, and to me personally - he was my second father, a mentor and one of the greatest people I’ve ever known.

Bill Hamilton is the reason I finished college, the reason I love to read, the reason I’m an entrepreneur, the reason I love software & tech, the reason I am skeptical, the reason I got on my first airplane, and so much more.

I can’t begin to imagine the hole that has been left in the heart of his family, especially his loving wife Susan and his daughter Wendy, whom I have come to know best. My love and support go out to them and his entire family.

Bill co-founded TechSmith all the way back in 1987. It was a software consulting company, and one of the products they developed to serve their clients was, I believe, the first-ever “screen capture” tool.

At the time, TechSmith was mainly doing consulting work for clients, but Bill had ambitions to become a software product company.

They had the brilliant idea to give away Snagit for free on a “shareware” site that allowed users to download free applications. Remember, this was pretty revolutionary at the time. At this time, mostly the way you would buy software was to walk into a brick and mortar retail store and buy packaged software off a shelf like a book.

Downloads of Snagit exploded so they decided to start offering customers the option to donate money to the company. And they did! All the sudden, TechSmith was a software company.

The company built visual communication software. Snagit for taking pictures of the Screen. Then Camtasia Studio for recording videos of the screen. Camtasia was the product that I helped grow under the leadership of Troy Stein.

Bill was built different and he built TechSmith unlike any other company that I had ever seen. When I joined TechSmith in 2003, I believe there were about 50 employees. TechSmith was like paradise to me.

There was an employee lounge with free pop, snacks, and every Friday the company catered meals for “Free food friday” where they would select the best restaurants from around the area and even sometimes - the best ice cream.

But it wasn’t the perk of getting to eat for free - Bill did it because he wanted his employees to sit together and get to know one another. It was all to build trust and community amongst his employees. This was something I directly emulated (Ahem, Stole) at Liquid Web.

Everything Bill did in the company was to build a culture where the employee was supported, mentored, taught, and grown into a better person. Bill encouraged dissent. He encouraged people to always have one thing in mind: What is best for the customer?

When I joined the company I was 22 years old. I was a young punk kid that knew nothing about software, the internet, business, - or anything - really.

At the time I was applying for the job, I was nearly bankrupt after starting a company that failed and taking a loan out from my generous parents that I was at risk of not being able to repay. I was bitter from my previous experience at Millenium Digital Media and felt that I had been treated unfairly, so I had a big chip on my shoulder.

I came into TechSmith with the attitude of literally - “Fuc& it. I’m going to speak my mind, they are going to fire me anyway.”

Bill had another incredible gift. He believed in complete transparency and honesty. Almost anyone in the company could run sales reports and see detailed financial information about the products and the company itself. In most companies, only the elite top of the company has the privilege of seeing this “sensitive” information.

But Bill believed that the best ideas can come from anywhere within the organization and that we should all work from the same set of facts. He also encouraged people to sit in on meetings, even on topics that they were not the expert.

I want to take a minute to go back to a post that I wrote just 4 short months ago. I am SO glad that I wrote this and took the time to honor the man I admired:

“Bill Hamilton at TechSmith will always be like a second father to me.

I didn't really know what software was when I was hired, and I certainly had no idea what it meant to invent a software application, do the coding to develop it, market it to customers, to become a multimillion-dollar product. TechSmith was one of the most beautiful companies I've ever worked for, comprised of some of the smartest people I've ever met in the world.

Being around those people made me smarter, no question—from Brooks Andrus who taught me all things “product”, to Betsy Weber on marketing, Michael Malinak, Paul Middlin, and Dean Craven on software development, Jim Hidlay on Sales, the Gardener twins, (Marty and Murphy) on insanely fast development, Daniel Park, Tony Lambert, Matt Ayo, Paul Wright, Jeff Kohler, Renee Badra, Amy Walsh, Carla Wardin, Tony Dunkle, and my all time favorite: Troy Stein: Troy taught me almost everything. (I know I missed many!!! SORRY!)

But the reason this all happened and the thing that brought us all together was Bill Hamilton.

Bill and his wife Susan created a culture where anyone could have any idea, and the status of the individual presenting the idea did not matter at all. The only thing that mattered was the correctness of the idea and how convincingly you could persuade others to your way of thinking.

I remember being a young punk kid, maybe 21 or 22, essentially doing customer service for sales calls. Even with my low level position, at TechSmith I was encouraged to sit in on some of the development and product marketing meetings for a software application that I knew nothing about. I had no expertise that qualified me to participate in those meetings. Yet, there I was.

I remember one meeting specifically a week or two into my employment that was about the Camtasia Studio’s non-destructive video editor. There were probably 10 brilliant people in the meeting — and me.

As the discussion went around the room and they discussed the product, I had a realization: I knew a little bit about the application because of my experience working at NBC Channel 10. I knew a little -- but not much —just enough to be dangerous.

I also had a chip on my shoulder from being fired from my previous job and after some prodding from Bill Hamilton, I got the courage to speak up.

“Do you guys realize this doesn’t function like any of the other video editing software on the market?” There was an audible gasp in the room as the youngest stupidest person at the table essentially disagreed with every decision that they had previously made.

The person who had hired me into TechSmith tried to get me to stop, but luckily Bill Hamilton was in the room. He embraced me, leaned in, and argued with me passionately. I argued back. I was certain I was going to be fired, but to my surprise, Bill Hamilton took me into the hallway afterward and continued the conversation.

He told me that he appreciated the feedback and welcomed it, and that I should continue to do it and sit in on more meetings. It was truly amazing.

Honestly, I don't even know if I was right about what I was saying. Looking back, I'm sure I probably wasn't, but that taught me the most important lesson of my life.

Surround yourself with smart people who want to hear your opinion regardless of your status, and people who judge you solely based on the content of your character and the quality of your thinking.

TechSmith taught me many things, but the main things it taught me were how to think, how to build companies, how to be skeptical of my own brain, it taught me strategies to disregard status in the search for truth, and taught me the importance of building high-quality teams of the smartest people in the world.

I am incredibly lucky that Bill Hamilton chose to keep TechSmith Corporation in the Lansing, Michigan, area. If it wasn't for that, I truly don't believe I would be the person I am today. That is not to say I am a perfect person. Far from it. But I’d certainly be a much shittier person if it wasn’t for Techsmith!

And this is precisely my point: because of my time at TechSmith, I know that perfection isn't an end state; it is a constant pursuit. The only way you can ever possibly get close to achieving it, which of course is never possible, is by surrounding yourself with smart people and continuing to push and challenge yourself every single day.

So, this concludes another love letter to Bill Hamilton, the founder of TechSmith Corporation.”

As I sit here crying and missing my friend and mentor, I regret a lot. I regret that I never recorded the podcast with him that I had planned to do. I regret that I didn’t join TechSmith after we sold Liquid Web like Bill had hoped I would.

On Monday when my friend Joe Dearman called to give me the news of Bill’s passing I was running at the MAC. Literally the very next thing on my To-Do list was to call Bill and invite him to Lunch with Brooks and Joe the following day.

When Joe told me of the passing of Bill, he mentioned that Bill was just in the office on Wednesday and he was sharp as ever. He also mentioned that on his way out of the meeting Bill said, “Tell Travis I said Hi”.

I cannot believe he is gone. He was healthy and sharp.

About 1/5 of you reading this will die of a heart attack. Of that, about 50% of you will be seemingly healthy and have no prior warning or signs. As most of you know, Matt Hill founder of Liquid Web, my best friend since 2 year old - also died of a heart attack.

This again is my plea to please spend the ~$200 to get a CT Calcium Score of your heart.

It is quick, painless, doesn’t require any dye or injections. Just a quick trip to see if you have a ticking time bomb in your chest. (I am not a doctor.)

Bill was my mentor. He was like a second father to me. The man I am today, for better or for worse, has been influenced mostly by my incredible parents and just after that… Bill Hamilton.

Bill and I would try to get lunch or breakfast about once a quarter. When I was walking out of a meeting we had around the time of Matt’s death I remember turning to him and saying: “I love you”. I think it startled him and I felt really weird when he didn’t say it back — but sitting here, I know he loved me and I am so fu$&ing thankful I delivered him that message while he was still here with us.

I love you Bill. Thank you.

Leave a comment