Lyn Alden

I decided to read a book called Anji Kills a King. And then on the very first page, she literally killed a fucking king. Wasn’t playing around.

I read Upgrade by Blake Crouch and wasn't a big fan. The outline of the story was promising but the execution was inconsistent, in my view. I'd give it maybe a 6.5/10. It's set in the near future, with a specific event having messed everything up. A genius scientist that tried to solve world hunger by genetically modifying crops accidentally caused a global famine, killing 200 million and damaging the world economically and socially for decades in a way that it never fully recovered from. Gene editing is now forbidden, and since the technology is accessible at pretty low cost, there are police forces dedicated to surveilling for usage of it and raiding peoples' houses to prevent another catastrophe. The main character, the son of that scientist, gets infected with a disease that changes his genes and makes him superhuman mentally and physically in a world where that's outlawed. And thus his adventure begins to find out who infected him and what to do. Without giving spoilers, probably my main issue with the story was the villain. She was badass with a cool background and setup, but then her motivations didn't really make sense. And the majority of the book is about the philosophical and external conflict between the hero and this villain. Solid outline and idea, but felt rushed and not as well thought out as it could have been. Some elements felt preachy in the sense that it feels like the author set up this conflict, which didn't really need to happen, in order to make a point. By fine-tuning the plot a bit more, I think it could have been executed better and more believably and preserving the overall outline.

My mother is visiting and she often has an interesting or story or two that I hadn't heard before. She was an attorney in the early 1980s. There was a Korean janitor who worked in a university in Seoul, and he managed to steal a copy of the university seal. This allowed him to make very convincing forgery diplomas, so he made himself a fake medical degree. He then got a fellowship in the US, married an American woman, and was working at a US university hospital. He did various additional forgeries, like getting a medical license from a retired doctor and altering it for himself, so he had an office filled with all sorts of fake diplomas, licenses, awards, etc. He had a private practice where he preyed on the Korean immigrant population in the city with his fake medical skills. Anyway he was eventually caught upon further scrutiny of his documents. The judge was lenient on him and gave him a prison sentence of 364 days, which is 1 day less than a year which is the threshold for crimes that often get people deported. Seems like a crazy story to me and could be a movie.

I read the book Blood Over Bright Haven by ML Wang. It's a stand-alone fantasy novel about a woman who seeks to become the first ever female highmage in the 300-year history of this city. Along the way, she uncovers dark secrets that others feel are best left hidden... I enjoyed the author's prior book, The Sword of Kaigen, so I figured I'd give this a try. It's extremely highly-rated and was kind of a breakout last year. The author tends to not have plot armor for any of her characters, and the stories don't necessarily follow typical three-act structures, which is refreshing. I found it well-written and engaging, I read it very quickly, and overall enjoyed it. Maybe an 8/10 for me. The main character is kind of intentionally unlikable. She has a single-minded drive toward greatness through her work, and doesn't relate well with people or pay attention to people around her, but is ethical in the sense that she doesn't mean others harm and when confronted with examples of harm she does care about it a lot. The one main criticism of this otherwise well-rated book is from those who say it is too heavy-handed in its themes. Sexism is a very strong theme in the book, as well as racism/colonialism, and the author is not subtle about it. So I was aware of that criticism going in, and wanted to see for myself what constitutes a theme being considered too heavy-handed here, in this moment. My assumption was that I would agree it's overdone. Surprisingly, I only half-agreed. I think whether it's overdone depends on the reader's context. It feels overdone here in the 21st century in US/Europe. It's like, "we get it, blatant sexism and racism/colonialism is bad". But on the other hand, the culture in the book is basically just 19th century England in terms of sexism and racism/colonialism. It's less sexist than some countries are today. I literally have in-law relatives that were victims of female genital mutilation in Egypt. The type that cuts off your clitoris, with all the lifelong limitations that come from that. And I see some of the strains of sexism that occur there in the present day. The themes in the book would not be heavy-handed in contexts like that. But if one is reading this in the US or Europe, there are certain eye-roll moments like, "Okay it's been enough, I get it." Anyway, interesting read and I'd look for more from the author in the future.

Fiction is one of the oldest ways that people use to transmit real ideas to others. It's often a powerful way to transmit empathy or morals, in particular. This goes back as far as the Epic of Gilgamesh which thematically explored the concept of death and legacy, and before then, to oral stories. In good stories, the hero often wins not just because they are stronger/better/faster, but because thematically they should win. Some virtue in them or some flaw in the villain, or both, helps determine the outcome. And if the hero doesn't win, then perhaps the story is about internal corruption, or a statement of negativity about the world, which in itself is a theme. In this sense, the hero and villain conflict not just physically, but thematically. Their conflict represents competing themes, in addition to also just being entertaining for its own sake which is why we want to consume it in the first place. A somewhat negative example is that more than half of the Mission Impossible movies have pretty forgettable villains. As a result, they're solid popcorn flicks due to the spectacles, but people will rarely list a Mission Impossible movie in their top three action movies. Answering "why did Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) win?" at the end of each movie often comes down to "because he's the best" or, when being generous "because he had such determination and courage to see it through... again". The villain played by Hoffman in Mission Impossible 3 was one of the better ones, but that was more about his performance, and I guess he thematically represented dark nihilism. And Henry Cavil as a villain was mainly for the cool factor, again more based on the actor than the character. Something like Dark Knight tends to stick with people more because the conflict between Batman and the Joker is presented thematically. Batman doesn't just win because he's stronger; he wins because Joker's nihilistic theory about humanity is presented as being wrong; the idea that everyone is secretly like him when pushed gets disproven. His theme gets defeated. Another random positive example is Samurai Champloo, which is hard to believe two decades old now. In that show, Jin was a ronin (lord-less samurai) who believed there were no longer any lords worth serving. The final villain, Kariya, was the best swordsman in Japan and was the shogun's enforcer, sent to kill a girl Jin was begrudgingly protecting. They fought, and Jin asked Kariya why a man as skilled as him would serve a lame shogun. Kariya said that like Jin, he didn't view anyone as worth serving, said the days of the samurai are coming to an end, and that he serves himself while appearing to serve the shogun. He just likes a good fight, and this job gives him the best. He defeats Jin and moves toward the girl. But Jin gets back up, injured, to try one more time. Kariya asks why throw his life away like that. They fight, and Jin uses a sacrificial technique wherein he purposely makes an opening on himself, Kariya stabs him, not realizing that it was intentional, and Jin uses that to create a simultaneous opening on Kariya to get an even more devastating surprise strike against him. Jin collapses but ultimately lives, and Kariya dies. The thematic reason Jin wins is because, in befriending and saving that girl, he found a duty that he viewed as above his own selfish interest, and was willing to combine his skill with that sort of sacrificial move, which was his only way to defeat a superior opponent. The superior opponent, having nothing worth fighting for, could neither use such a technique nor would he expect that sort of technique to be used against him by someone with Jin's history. The best action stories, in my view, are ones that leave me thinking afterward. A memorable character arc, either heroic or tragic or both. They compare and test themes against each other, in addition to just throwing fictional characters and their fictional abilities at each other. What are some of your favorite pieces of fiction that explore or test themes?

After months of substantial refinement to bring my fiction prose quality up toward my nonfiction standards, I’ve decided that I will indeed publish my sci fi novel. I had to make sure it was solid enough to shift it from hobby project to something I can share publicly. It’s all for fun but rather than just be an internal thing, I’ll definitely share it. Still have months of touches to do, including a final full edit, but it’s a go.

What are your favorite examples of antagonists that change and grow throughout a story but generally remain antagonists? Eg they are not “protagonist villains” like Walter White, and they are not “redeemed villains” because at least in some ways, they fail to redeem or their growth arc, while present, is stunted. Usually an antagonist is static, while a protagonist grows to defeat them. But in some fiction, the antagonist grows and changes and yet still is an antagonist. Jamie Lannister is an interesting example. He starts off by callously pushing a child out a window. And he goes to war against the protagonists of House Stark. But then he gets humbled, has his perspective changed, fixes some of his weaknesses and leans more on his strengths, becomes likeable by the audience, finds himself pairing up with the protagonists more, etc. So he goes through a growth arc. But then at the end, he still chooses his original side. More mature, but still ultimately bound by his same weaknesses. An interesting arc to watch, and one that probably would have been more interesting if the last season wasn’t rushed and bad. Any other good examples? Maybe ones that remain more villainous than Jaime?

I listened to some AI generated music lately. There’s plenty of it on YouTube. -Vocals sounded fine. Similar to any auto-tuned singer. A rehash of a rehash. -Lyrics had some individually poetic lines, but didn’t make much sense when strung together. At best their meaning was vapid, and at worst literally incoherent.

This analysis of why most movies suck now cracked me up: “The era of Woke was defined by passionate identity politics but dispassionate creativity and regard for source material. In the wake of Woke, we are now in the era of Slop, which is just dispassionate entirely. Slop content is colorful, shiny, and new, but feels like a copy of a copy of a copy. Slop is low effort content that makes and leaves no impression, has no meaning or cultural impact, is basically watchable but has no rewatchability, and no one involves cares. It is high energy but without intensity. It has a huge budget and vast resources, and squanders them. Slop is about producing content for the sake of having something for sale. It supposes that mainstream viewers are comfortable with tired tropes and cliches and that much of the audience is young and dumb enough to not register them as tropes and cliches. Slop happens because studios don’t understand why a certain IP works or why it got popular, and don’t properly understand the audience or when to call it quits or who to put in charge. Slop is a result of second-screen (phone) engagement becoming a typical part of media consumption. Instead of fighting it, companies are now designing content around the assumption that audiences won’t be fully paying attention.” https://youtu.be/HvO6YYkQakI

The March trade balance numbers were reported today. As expected, there was massive front-running before tariffs kicked in. The April numbers, which will be reported next month, should show a large contraction, with front-running finished.

Doing podcasts while sick is so annoying. I literally click mute every time I sniffle, and speak with an even more nasally voice than usual since I have to low-key blow my nose but don’t want to interrupt several times to do this. Anyway, thanks for tuning into today’s episode of “Over-sharing with Lyn”.

The fact that bond yields are UP today is the most noteworthy thing, imo.

A lot of people, including some really well known ones, cite the figure that the U.S. has to roll $9 trillion in debt over the next 12 months, as though it’s a disaster. Sometimes they assume the average interest rate is spread over the full Treasury debt duration evenly, including from years ago. But in reality, most of what is maturing is short-term debt, which will have similar interest rates as it had over the past couple years, and mostly the same holders will refinance it. Only a minority is longer-term debt, meaning lower-rate bonds will mature and get refinanced by higher-rate bonds. Not a giant deal. I’m first in line to talk about debts, deficits, and interest expense becoming a problem. I even have probably the best-known single meme about it. So, zooming out, yes it’s a major deal. But most of the time when people cite the gross refinancing numbers over the next 12 months, it’s a flag that they’re unfamiliar with the subject, and getting caught up in alarmism.

I remember back when Israel went into Gaza, and markets took a hit, bitcoin was down notably and many tradfi macro folks who I otherwise respect for good market analysis were like “Why is bitcoin down today? I thought it’s a safe haven, lol.” Similarly, today when bitcoin is up amid market turmoil, the bitcoin bulls celebrate it. I’d be cautious about all one-day moves. If you over-emphasize them, you risk looking like someone with a memory of a goldfish, or otherwise operating with selection bias. However, a point I have made in the past, and will repeat today, is that there are different types of risk-off events. A risk-off event that hurts liquidity is likely to hurt bitcoin. A risk-off event that demands more liquidity, or that is unrelated to liquidity (eg tariffs attacking corporate margins), is more likely to benefit or at least kind of spare Bitcoin. Focusing on Bitcoin as a risk on or risk off asset is first level thinking. People who understand it deeply and self custody it tend to view it as risk off period, for good reason. But not always in terms of price. In terms of price, whether it functions as a risk on/off asset varies based on what type of risk on/off catalyst it was. This catalyst risks hitting margins, not liquidity, and thus so far the reaction makes sense. But it still pays to be careful not to celebrate one-day moves too much. Cautiously bullish.

“You can just do things” is one of my favorite meme phrases that I see out there. Back around my senior year of high school, I consciously decided to shift to that mindset. I went from kind of operating within rules, and trying to leave a light touch around me, to being more assertive and creative about what I want to do. It was kind of a quiet “I’m not locked in here with you, you’re locked in here with me” vibe shift. At the time I think the terminology I filtered it through was Sagan’s pale blue dot. Like, everything that has ever been done is on this crazy little ball spinning through space. So it’s okay to just do things, to take chances, to think outside of the box. Because the box itself is already actually kind of crazy. And then in the mid-2010s, like around 2016, I did kind of a checkup on how I’m doing, and felt that while I had used that strategy well, I wasn’t thinking big enough. I had primarily used that strategy to climb up the ranks in the engineering world, with the goal of making things better for myself and my colleagues/division; I would just do things and be the person who pushed to say “yes” a lot and it had worked out really well. But for my next phase, I felt I needed to “just do things” outside of an organizational structure as well. So I started my namesake website. I previously had a small anon website on stock investing which I was able to sell to some publisher and that gave me experience, but this one would be different. It would have my face on it. Any sort of content creator starts by being a little crazy. It starts with the improbable concept that you could create written or audio or visual content that thousands or millions of people will actually want to see and get value out of, in the sea of endless content that already exists. But it starts somewhere. With just doing things. My view was that I would do my best, leverage the experience that I had, and give it my honest shot. Never looked back since. It’s been a wild journey.

My March newsletter talks mainly about AI, and some of the nuances between datacenter AI and portable AI. https://www.lynalden.com/march-2025-newsletter/