In 2024, I began reading a book every week. I wanted to share what I’d read, so I posted a recap of my 2024 reading stats and lessons learned (see here). I was frustrated by how hard it was to share a list of all the book titles (see here), so I created a page about each book I read in 2024 (see here). I wanted to replace the Google Sheet I use to track all my reading, so I created a searchable library of all the books I’ve read (see here). I update it weekly.

Last year, 2025, was year two of consistently reading a book every week, and I want to share a recap of my stats and lessons learned. Sorry it’s late (the goal was January).

High-level stat for 2025:

• Books read: 51

2025 breakdown by month:

• January: 4
• February: 4
• March: 4
• April: 4
• May: 4
• June: 5
• July: 4
• August: 5
• September: 4
• October: 4
• November: 5
• December: 4

If you’d like to know what those 51 books were, see my 2025 reading list here.

Here are a few things I learned along the way:

• Reading for general information is critical if I want to generate new ideas—and I do. A Technique for Producing Ideas reinforced this. I have to learn about ideas so I can borrow from them when I’m trying to come up with a new one myself.
• Rereading high-quality books is sometimes better than reading new books. I reread a few books last year, and that helped me a ton. I’m now trying to reread at least one book every month.
• Synoptical reading is key to leveraging books to solve hard problems or deeply understand something. See more here.
• Framework books are a good fit for my personality, and they’re helpful. They give you the framework or process to use when you’re trying to accomplish something. They don’t give you the answer, but they show you how to get to the right answer.
• I get the most out of books when I read with intention; that is, with a clearly defined purpose for reading that book. That purpose should be a problem I’m actively trying to solve or a topic I want to understand better. This year, I’ve started writing down the problem I need to solve or the topic I want to understand before I choose a book. That’s helped me do more synoptical reading and get more from my reading that I can quickly put to use.
• There are no hacks with reading. I have to not only read but also do the work to understand what I’m reading. The best way to do that (that I’ve found so far) is to synthesize a book and share what I learned with others. But I haven’t found a way to be consistent with that.
• Learning through reading doesn’t feel like a chore anymore. It’s something I enjoy doing in my downtime. The personal-growth aspect of it appeals to my curious nature, and I feel like I can sustain it for a long time.
• Application of knowledge is the key to getting better outcomes. A priority of mine in 2025 is to apply what I’ve learned from reading, specifically around decision-making with imperfect information and probabilistic thinking.

Those are my takeaways and reading stats for 2025!

Earlier this week, the CEO of Amazon announced (see here) that any business can now use Amazon Supply Chain Services, a freight, distribution, fulfillment, and parcel shipping network, without needing to sell on Amazon. Translation: Amazon is selling the logistics infrastructure it built up to support its massive retail operation to other businesses. This wasn’t news to me. Honestly, it was really more branding. I think these services existed already, but they were offered separately. They’re now all housed under a single roof, Amazon Supply Chain Services.

After reading the announcement, I dug into their parcel shipping service, Amazon Shipping. This is their version of last-mile delivery, and it’s competing with UPS Ground and FedEx Ground. An Amazon driver will pick up packages from a business and deliver them to the designated recipient, who didn’t necessarily purchase anything on Amazon’s website. It’s truly a stand-alone small-parcel delivery service. I found two tables: base rates (see here) and discounted rates if you ship 150 packages a day (see here).

Having spent millions shipping with UPS and FedEx Ground in my company, I’m familiar with ground rates and how they impact the available strategies a brand can leverage to distribute products to customers. For example, for many brands, the cost to ship a low-priced item to a customer’s doorstep (say, $15 for a $20 item) makes a direct-to-consumer distribution strategy impossible. Instead, they rely on big retailers like Walmart and Target who have tons of stores and steady customer traffic. A brand can ship hundreds of units to each big box retail store, reducing its per-unit shipping cost to something like a few cents instead of $15. The caveat is that they have to sell the items to Walmart and Target at significantly lower than MSRP (usually 50%) so the big stores can make a profit. Brands give up margin and owning the relationship with the customer (among other things) in exchange for larger orders from a handful of huge retailers. I’m oversimplifying, but you get the gist.

When I looked at the rate table for Amazon Shipping, I saw something new. A brand has to ship only 150 packages a day (a modest number) to earn a substantial discount. Shipping a one-pound package within 150 miles goes from costing $12 to costing $6.50. That’s a massive discount. And if a brand is shipping more than 300 packages a day, Amazon will negotiate a custom lower rate.

This is a big deal because it changes how some (not all) brands can think about their distribution strategy: they can now consider direct-to-consumer. Especially brands that sell small, light items that have lower retail price points. Amazon Shipping makes it possible for those brands to profitably ship directly to consumers. More operational complexity comes with this, for sure. But for some brands, it might be worth it, especially if they want to own the relationship with the end buyers of their products.

Amazon Services isn’t new; it’s been around for about two years. But its latest pricing structure and discounted rate transparency are game-changers, and I think it could impact how brands develop their strategy for selling and getting their products in the hands of customers.

I’m following up on yesterday’s post (see here). A credible person I respect read that post and proposed an alternative solution to the problem I described. Instead of deciding between one 60-minute presentation (in a 2-hour meeting) or two 60-minute presentations (in a 3-hour meeting), they suggested making the presentation for urgent problems 30 minutes and the scheduled presentation 60 minutes, extending the total meeting time to 2.5 hours, which may not feel like as drastic a change. I like this and will share it with the entrepreneurs to see what they think.

The other takeaway is that as moderator, I have lots of follow-up to do and action items to take care of before the next meeting. Founders need assistance, preparation for the next meeting, etc. Meetings are held monthly, so in theory I could wait until closer to the next meeting to start working on action items. However, I find it more helpful to attack them immediately after a meeting while everyone’s memory is fresh and the momentum with the entrepreneurs is strong. For example, immediately after the meeting adjourned, I scheduled meetings with the entrepreneurs who said they wanted help, and next week I’ll help them work through roadblocks. I also immediately reflected on people’s feedback and created the agenda for the next meeting, incorporating the feedback and learnings while they were fresh in my mind. I feel better prepared for the next meeting and have a plan to keep founders engaged by helping them before the next meeting.

I’m very pleased with the first meeting, but I’m not satisfied. I want to improve it so the value founders get from participating trumps anything else they’re a part of and makes them excitedly look forward to every meeting.

As I shared last week (see here), for the past few weeks I’ve been working with Atlanta entrepreneurs to set up an accountability group. The group meets once a month for a few hours. My expectation for the group is high engagement and open sharing so they’ll learn from one another and solve their problems faster. I want them to get value similar to what entrepreneurs get from EO and YPO forums.

We had our first meeting this week, which I moderated. It was a success, but I learned several valuable lessons. Meeting length is the first. We aimed for two hours, which included one sixty-minute presentation. The presentation was selected based on which entrepreneur had the most urgent problem to solve. This worked, and the presentation was great. But the feedback from the group was that allowing only the entrepreneur with the most urgent problem to present likely isn’t sustainable. Entrepreneurs said they didn’t like the idea of having to pick from urgent house fires at every meeting. Some want to know they’ll have a guaranteed opportunity to present, even if they don’t have a burning problem. And last, some entrepreneurs want more time to think about and prepare a presentation and to know with certainty that their presentation will happen.

The challenge is that the meeting agendas are currently built around a two-hour meeting length: one hour of discussing the most important updates from each entrepreneur, with the idea of finding one worth presenting to the group, and a one-hour presentation.

To address the group’s concerns, we will likely need to add a second presentation slot. One would be the most burning problem selected on the spot from the updates. The other would be a scheduled presentation. We’ll either have to add another hour to the meeting, making it three hours long, or cut the presentation time in half. Each option has pros and cons.

I’m not sure what change, if any, we’ll make. The group will make the final decision via a democratic process. But it stood out to me that several entrepreneurs pointed out the challenges of having a single presentation slot for each meeting.

Regardless, the first meeting went well, and I’m looking forward to continually improving the meeting format to maximize the value to the entrepreneurs.

A few weeks ago, I shared that I’d listened to a podcast presenter talk about how sound neural entrainment can reduce distractibility and help you get into your flow state. He mentioned Brain.fm, and I signed up for a free trial.

It’s been two weeks, and I really like the product. It’s hard to explain, but when I turn on the service, I definitely feel more in the zone and more productive. I focus faster than usual and knock out my to-do list like a champ.

I’ve noticed a few things, though. The first is that I need to remember to turn on the service! I don’t consistently remember, but when I do, I’m glad. I need to work toward making turning it on part of my normal work habits. The other thing I’ve noticed is that I get the most impact when I use earphones. When I let it play over the speakers on my computer, it doesn’t have the same effect. I think the earphones block out all other background noise so the rhythm of the music is all I hear.

Overall, I’m a fan so far. I’ll keep testing it for the rest of the month.

Current Project: Reading books about entrepreneurs and investors and sharing what I learned from them

Mission: Create a library of wisdom from notable entrepreneurs that current entrepreneurs can leverage to increase their chances of success

Cumulative metrics (since 4/1/24):

• Total books read: 113
• Total blog posts published: 756

This week’s metrics:

• Books read: 1
• Blog posts published: 7

What I completed in the week ending 5/3/26 (link to the previous week’s commitments):

• Read More Than a Hobby, a memoir by Hobby Lobby founder David Green. Green describes his early years growing up in a financially strapped family and how he stumbled upon his love for retail in high school and never looked back. He shares his simple business and retailing principles that guided him as he turned a $600 bank loan into a home-and-craft empire with hundreds of stores and over $1.4 billion in annual revenue (as of 2005; it’s much larger now).

What I’ll do next week:

• Read a biography, autobiography, or framework book

Asks:

• No ask this week

Week three hundred eighteen was another week of learning. Looking forward to next week!

Continuing with my new protocol, here I’m going to share content I consumed and learned from. This week, I spent time trying to understand the brokerage and 3D gaming worlds. I listened to the perspectives of two seasoned public equity market investors.

What I consumed this week and what I learned from it:

• Building the YouTube of 3D worlds and video games – YouTube interview with Roblox cofounder and CEO David Baszucki. Interesting interview to understand the early days and what led Baszucki to found an ahead-of-its-time company after he sold another company for $20 million. He looked for a CEO job for two years before following his passion.
• Building an AI brokerage – YouTube interview with Public co-CEO and founder Leif Abraham. I’ve read biographies about the founders of Schwab, TD Ameritrade, and Vanguard (see here, here, and here). The brokerage business fascinates me. Public is building an AI-first brokerage platform. Learning more about the company and where the industry is going, as seen through Abraham’s eyes, was thought-provoking.
• The more risk you feel you’re taking, the less risk you’re taking – YouTube interview with Chris Davis of Davis Advisors. I read the biography of the Davis family (see here) and have followed Chris ever since. Lots of great nuggets in this interview about how he approaches investing in durable companies using a margin of safety. He shares wisdom about regretting selling great companies too early.
• Paul Tudor Jones on stock market cap-to-GDP – YouTube interview with Paul Tudor Jones, legendary trader and founder of Tudor Investment Corporation. Great insights from someone who’s seen multiple market cycles. His views on the total stock market cap–to-GDP ratio stuck with me. His daily routine is insane. His reflections on how long-term investing and Buffett’s approach are better were entertaining, especially coming from a multibillionaire who said the opposite years ago. Interesting story about how one small act of kindness to him in the 1950s sparked decades of philanthropic activities.

That’s what I consumed and learned from last week.

‍

Today I had a good conversation with a friend who’s an entrepreneur, and he said something that stuck with me. We were talking about his new venture, and I mentioned plans he could make for the future when his company is successful. He shared that he doesn’t want to think like that. He wants to stay hungry and consider only what he needs to do here and now. He believes that in the early stages, thinking too far ahead increases your chances of failure and demonstrates a lack of humility. Once he becomes successful, then he can expand his plans.

This is an interesting take, and after thinking about what he said, I agree. It’s what I did when I started my company. I was hungry and focused on surviving. All my energy went toward staying alive and moving the company forward. Only after I knew we wouldn’t die did I start thinking more about what decisions I should take to scale to company further.

My takeaway from my chat with my friend is that there’s a time and place to plan far into the future. And it’s not when the future is highly uncertain.

Years ago, when I was running my company, I often found myself in a challenging decision-making situation. I would listen to a vendor, partner, or team member tell me not to worry about a particular issue. They were on top of it, and everything was OK or improving. I’d be relieved. Then I’d look at the data, and it would tell me a different story. The exact opposite was true: the situation was worse than I thought and not getting better.

When people are telling you one thing and data is telling you another, it can be difficult to know which to believe. Ideally, you want them to be telling you the same thing. But when they differ materially, you have to pick which one you’ll listen to and base your decisions on.

In the end, neither is 100% right all the time. But in my experience, the probabilities are higher that the data is right. So, when I have to pick between basing a decision on what a person is telling me and basing it on what the data is showing me, I’ve learned the hard way to go with the data.

I’ve been listening to a lot of friends discuss the amount of money that’s being spent to build data centers and related infrastructure for AI. Some of them are investors and others are entrepreneurs, so I hear varying perspectives on whether the current and proposed levels of spending make sense. And after listening to Kevin Koharki explain how stock-based compensation hits shareholders twice and reduces cash flow per share significantly (see here), I began thinking about it from that perspective as well.

I’m not sure what to make of this boom in spending on AI, but I want to understand it better because I think its impact on the economy and society will be massive. Luckily, this isn’t the first time we’ve had a massive spending boom driven by new technology. That being the case, I think the best thing for me to do is study history to understand what happened so I can better understand today’s reality. I have some historical books on this topic that I’m going to crack open.