dave trott retweeted
.@aiApotheosis: "Best advertising ever lol"
Me: Indeed. And on social too: +3 milion views cc:@davetrott
This quoted post is unavailable.
Very classy, very intelligent response
黄仁勋夫人Lori对出轨事件的回应……
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
该视频并非黄仁勋妻子Lori(Lori Mills)本人的真实回应。据《南华早报》等多家媒体报道,截至目前,黄仁勋妻子从未就其丈夫出轨事件公开发表过任何言论或视频回应。scmp.com/magazines/styl…
dave trott retweeted
The CIA’s predecessor produced a sabotage field manual to disrupt the enemy from within, by impairing decision-making processes.
It’s not hard to see why such sabotage acts would go unnoticed, observes @davetrott—do you recognize any of this top-8?
buff.ly/binKKIY
dave trott retweeted
.@davetrott: "We are sabotaging ourselves every day, just as sure as if we’d all read the OSS manual" davetrott.co.uk/2026/11/sabo…
Me: I'd argue that ego is at fault there.
Grok:
Replying to @JoachimSchulz @davetrott
Ego is a big driver. Fear of looking wrong, need to seem thorough or important, protecting status — that fuels the caution, the endless meetings, the word-quibbling and the committees. What gets sold as professionalism is often just insecurity in a suit.
dave trott retweeted
Arguably the best question you can ask—“What happens if we break the rules?”, considering the benefits as well as the cost.
@davetrott explains why, with one of the most cost-effective advertising campaigns ever:
buff.ly/3ptzzR4
dave trott retweeted
In this week's blog, @davetrott has a great story about how Nike entered the basketball business by breaking the rules to create the media buy of the century. Always entertaining to read about a successful business rebel: davetrott.co.uk/2026/11/what…
WHAT DO THE RULES SAY WE CAN'T DO? davetrott.co.uk/2026/11/what…
Excellent: the professor was a creative, the philosophers were strategists.
Twenty-three years ago, when I was studying philosophy in Italy, one of the most interesting questions that occupied my mind was whether human beings genuinely arrive at truth through reason, or merely acquire a sufficiently sophisticated vocabulary to explain why they continue to deceive themselves.
I remember a professor who, during a lecture on epistemology, declared with an entirely serious expression:
“It is difficult to find black socks in a dark room, unless they smell!”
I must admit that such a statement would hardly find a place in an academic treatise, but I immediately recognised in it an unexpectedly serious philosophical problem, formulated with an economy of means of which certain German idealists could only dream.
Imagine Kant confronted with this situation. Before searching for the socks, he would probably begin by examining the conditions under which their existence could become an object of possible experience. Hegel would establish that darkness and the socks stand in a dialectical relationship, whose resolution is yet to be accomplished through the very movement of Spirit. And Heidegger would undoubtedly devote several hundred pages to the being-of-the-sock-in-darkness before raising the question of whether smell might not constitute an authentic mode of disclosing presence.
And the professor would probably simply open the window.
I remember how seriously we took philosophical distinctions in those days, how diligently we discussed the limits of sensory knowledge, the reliability of perception, and the relationships between essence and appearance, while life, with its characteristically unceremonious sense of humour, continually presented us with examples capable of ruining an entire seminar in less than five minutes.
Because there is one detail in the story of the socks that deserves attention: sometimes the very quality we would prefer an object not to possess turns out to be the only reliable means of finding it.
And this, of course, applies to considerably more than socks.
After twenty-three years of reading, reflection, and quite a few encounters with people who hold an extraordinarily high opinion of their own intellectual importance, I am beginning to suspect that the professor demonstrated remarkable perceptiveness. Certain phenomena remain entirely invisible until they begin to reveal their presence in ways that no sophisticated terminology can conceal.
To this day, I remember that lecture with particular pleasure, because a single pair of imaginary socks managed to call into question all our self-confidence as young philosophers, armed with Kant, Hegel, and the unshakeable conviction that human knowledge was an exceptionally serious business.
Or we could simply have opened the window.
In either case, philosophy would have made a certain amount of progress.
3
1,601
dave trott retweeted
Bought “Crossover Creativity” by @davetrott, and loving it! I’m only 30 pages in and have already read half a dozen mind blowing things. 🤩
dave trott retweeted
.@davetrott: "The important number is – 89% of advertising isn’t noticed or remembered. So roughly 9 out of every 10 ads are invisible, they’re just wallpaper" davetrott.co.uk/2026/10/the-…
Sure better be remembered, but thanks to your post and my curiosity, I found out this:
Replying to @JoachimSchulz
Yes, research shows ads can still shape behavior without conscious notice or recall. Neuromarketing studies (e.g., Neurons/Ramsoy on paint ads) found people bought the advertised brand more often yet denied seeing the ad or being influenced, inventing other reasons instead. Implicit memory and priming effects occur even with low or no attention, building brand familiarity and preference subconsciously. True subliminal effects are weaker and context-dependent, but everyday low-attention exposure works.
























