3 months ago

Today's 689 cards on Technical Advisor Guidelines are a serious stack — but each rep is sharpening the exact expertise that makes your guidance credible and trustworthy. Power through them and you'll end the day knowing this material cold.

Not generated yet.

3 months ago

This week your learning split clearly across two domains: psychology and behavioral science on July 8th, and data architecture on July 9th-10th. On the psychology side, you touched on cognitive reappraisal, the neuroscience of pain and discomfort, ADHD management, the upside of embracing darker emotions, and the psychology of risk-taking across several books including *Market Mind Games* and *Risk Savvy*. That's a fairly broad sweep of material covered in a single late-night session, and most of it resolved to "good" ratings relatively quickly, suggesting you have a decent foundation in these areas already.

The clearest struggle from that first session was risk-related material. *The Neuroscience of Risk Taking* triggered an "again" rating twice before you finally got it to "good," and *Risk Savvy* opened with a score of 5 before recovering. Cognitive reappraisal also showed notable variability, with scores swinging from 62 to 92 across multiple attempts in the same sitting — which suggests you know the concept but haven't yet locked down the precise details the cards are testing. When material fluctuates that much within one session, it usually means the knowledge is surface-level and benefits from more time between repetitions rather than more repetitions back-to-back.

The dominant story of the week, by volume, is your deep dive into *Shifting Left: Rearchitecting the Operational–Analytical Divide*. You spent the better part of two days hammering this single topic across dozens of attempts and reviews, spread across three separate sittings. The sheer repetition volume is striking — this is clearly something you're working hard to internalize, likely because it's technically dense or professionally important to you. The good news is that by the later sessions on July 10th, you were regularly hitting "easy" ratings, which is a meaningful signal that the core ideas are genuinely consolidating.

That said, the occasional "again" ratings that kept appearing even late in the Shifting Left sessions — including one as late as the July 10th early-morning block — suggest there are specific sub-concepts within that material that aren't fully landing yet. Rather than continuing to mass-review the whole topic, it would be worth identifying which specific cards are still triggering "again" and isolating those for targeted attention. The material that's already rating "easy" can safely be left to the spaced repetition schedule; over-reviewing it now is diminishing returns.

One practical note: a lot of this week's studying happened in late-night and early-morning windows, sometimes past midnight. That's worth being aware of, since fatigue can inflate "again" ratings and make it harder to distinguish genuine gaps from temporary retrieval failures. The *Practical Use Cases for Read-Only Iceberg Tables* card that appeared at the very end is a new thread worth watching — it will be interesting to see whether that data engineering topic gets the same intensive treatment next week or gets folded into a broader review pattern.

3 months ago

Two weeks ago you covered a notably eclectic range of material, moving between product development theory, investing frameworks, creative work, operations, and technical data infrastructure. The most sustained effort on June 26th went into *The Principles of Product Development Flow*, which took multiple "again" ratings before finally graduating — a sign that the concepts were genuinely resistant at first but that you pushed through until they clicked. You also worked through *Hey Whipple, Squeeze This* and *The Creative Act* that same day, both of which graduated relatively smoothly, suggesting those topics either aligned well with existing knowledge or were simply more intuitive for you.

The evening of June 29th was dominated by a long investing-focused session covering George Soros, Stanley Druckenmiller, Scott Bessent, Jim Rogers, Valuation Mastery, and the Munger moats piece. The sheer volume of repetitions tells you this was serious consolidation work, not casual review. George Soros gave you the most trouble — you hit "again" repeatedly throughout the session and returned to it multiple times even after getting "good" ratings, which suggests the specific details or frameworks around his thinking aren't fully anchored yet. Scott Bessent and the Munger moats material also showed intermittent slippage, even if the overall trend was positive.

*The Goal* got an early-morning session on June 30th, and the score swings — 90, 95, then a jarring 25, then back up to 90 — reveal something important: you likely have strong recall on most of the material but there's at least one concept or question in that deck that catches you off guard consistently. That single weak point is worth isolating rather than letting it hide inside otherwise solid sessions.

Technical Advisor Guidelines proved to be your clearest struggle of the period. You attempted it repeatedly across June 30th and July 1st, scoring in the 45–62 range before finally breaking through to 82–90 at the end. This is a topic that clearly required more raw repetition than you anticipated, and it's worth watching closely in your upcoming reviews to see whether that late-session improvement actually held. Apache Iceberg appeared briefly with a 62 and an "again," but without follow-up attempts in the log — that one may need deliberate attention when it resurfaces.

The big-picture pattern here is that your investing cluster is broad and ambitious, covering multiple distinct thinkers simultaneously, and that breadth seems to be creating interference — details from one investor bleeding into or crowding out another. You might find it useful to be especially deliberate when those cards come back around, actively distinguishing between the frameworks rather than treating them as a unified body of knowledge.