Reflections on Fatherhood – April 17, 2025

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 What if postpartum care is stuck in the same outdated thinking?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.

Year Of The Opposite - Travis Stoliker's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

There’s only one large all-sport lake (allows for watersports) around Lansing, Lake Lansing. It has a terrible reputation because it used to be dirty, and that was not entirely wrong. As a watershed lake, about 90% of its water comes from storm runoff, which means everything from lawn fertilizer to road salt and oil once flowed straight in from the surrounding area. That runoff built up sediment and pollutants over decades, making the lake seem small, shallow, and murky. But it is not like that anymore. A major dredging project in 1978, ongoing lake management, and better stormwater practices have made the water cleaner now than it has been in decades.

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.

Thanks for reading Year Of The Opposite - Travis Stoliker's Substack! This post is public so feel free to share it.

The JumpStart Payroll Tax was passed in Seattle on July 6, 2020 to “fund affordable housing and combat homelessness” by taxing corporations with payrolls over $8.5 million. It targeted companies like Amazon.

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.

Note: At the bottom of this article you’ll get several FREE tutorial videos that will show you practical uses for AI that you can start using today. This is just a taste of what you’ll learn in the full course.

* 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!

Year Of The Opposite - Travis Stoliker's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Capitalism gets a bad rap as a ruthless, dog-eat-dog system, but in reality, it’s the most effective way to create shared prosperity.

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.

Year Of The Opposite - Travis Stoliker's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

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.

Personal Note: I’m very sorry for the delay in publishing. We took a vacation to Florida to see the first launch of Blue Origins New Glenn rocket. Our 6 year old loves rockets and space —it was awesome! Although a bummer that all of the launches were at 1am. Quite a difficulty for a 6 year old and a wife that is 6 months pregnant. But they were troopers and really impressed me. If you can make it down to the space coast, I highly recommend it.

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.

Year Of The Opposite - Travis Stoliker's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

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)

*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.

Year Of The Opposite - Travis Stoliker's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

I wanted to follow up on my post from last week, Return to Real Science, that talked about “Relativism”. Two things happened since then that I thought perfectly illustrated the problem with “Moral Relativism” or “Moral Inversion”.

I posted the following writing on Facebook:

“I am appalled that many people, including journalists like Taylor Lorenz (Washington Post & New York Times), are celebrating the murder of an insurance company CEO. Taylor posted a screenshot of another health insurance company making a change and her post said: “And people wonder why we want these executives dead”.

This is the problem with moral relativism.

Get my weekly posts in your email by subscribing for free!

For background I shared that my article this week explained relativism and included a quote from the article:

“Relativism is the idea that all opinions are equally valid, no matter how ridiculous. For example, certain frameworks might argue that math is oppressive because it emphasizes correct answers. But without objective truth, how do we build bridges, design computers, or cure diseases? Imagine an engineer saying, “My truth is that this bridge will hold up,” even if the math proves otherwise. Relativism doesn’t lead to progress; it leads to chaos.”

We’re seeing the damage this mindset causes right now. People are justifying their celebration of murder by claiming it’s acceptable because of the CEO’s role in denying health insurance claims.

This selective moral reasoning is rooted in relativism—the belief that morality can shift based on context or personal feelings. It replaces universal principles, like the inherent wrongness of murder, with subjective justifications tied to anger or perceived injustice.

But here’s the danger: if morality becomes entirely relative, it opens the door to chaos.

Today, it’s celebrating a CEO’s murder; tomorrow, it could be justifying anything that feels right to someone at the time.

Relativism undermines the very foundations of ethical reasoning and erodes trust in the principles that hold society together.

We cannot allow ourselves to be swept away by this mindset.

It’s imperative to reject moral relativism and return to universal principles of reason and evidence, principles that ensure justice, fairness, and accountability for all, regardless of our emotions or personal grievances.

Murder is wrong.”

After I posted this on Facebook, one of my very smart and well intentioned friends respectfully criticized my article saying that I was incorrect. We had a lengthy debate and I know he has the best of intentions, but this part of the interaction perfectly illustrated the problem with this mindset.

He suggested that my post was alienating people.

So I responded with the message:

“I respectfully suggest it may not be me who is alienating people. Let me offer an example: Could you answer a seemingly simple question with a simple yes or no: “Is it acceptable for race to be a consideration in hiring, grading, or discipline?”

His response was: “That’s a trick question and you know it. Yes, it’s acceptable in select situations. And no, it isn’t in all.”

That answer shocks most people that have been out of academia for a while or who haven’t been paying attention to this new line of thinking. But it is a perfect illustration of moral relativism. It couldn’t be more clear.

This new line of thinking has convinced incredibly smart and well intentioned people that racism and murder are okay in certain “select situations”.

I reject this view completely and I hope that we all will.

It is never appropriate to judge someone based on the color of their skin. This is a moral truth. This is the basis of the Civil Rights Movement and the Civil Rights Act.

But sadly, this type of thinking has pervaded almost all of our powerful institutions in America. Due to the selective moral relativism, organizations like schools, companies, non-profits will engage in a practice called “Hiring with an equity lens”. This activity quite literally encourages the organization to make hiring decisions with an eye towards considering race. This practice is illegal and immoral, even though it is done with the best of intentions, it still does not justify the practice and it never will. We must reject this kind of moral relativism and return to return to objective, universal principles that respect individual rights and emphasize personal responsibility. Hiring decisions, and all organizational practices, must be based on competence, character, and contribution, not superficial attributes like race or gender. When we deviate from this approach, we erode the foundations of trust and accountability that hold society together.

This is not about intention but about outcomes. Good intentions cannot justify practices that undermine equality under the law and create resentment. History has proven that when people are judged by their abilities and achievements, rather than group identity, innovation and prosperity follow.

To restore integrity to our institutions, we must demand a relentless commitment to standards that transcend political fads or ideological movements. This means rejecting any practice that prioritizes group identity over individual capability and insisting on a meritocratic approach that rewards excellence and effort.

The way forward is simple but not easy. It requires a willingness to stand against popular but destructive ideas and to reaffirm timeless truths about human dignity and agency. Our schools, businesses, and nonprofits must lead by example, building cultures where personal responsibility and achievement are the sole measures of success.

Definitions

Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.Racism: the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

My dream is to be a writer. My paid subscribers support my dream. Thank you!

Over the past few decades, a troubling shift has occurred in how we perceive and utilize science, particularly within educational contexts. Traditional science, grounded in facts, evidence, and experimentation, is increasingly being overshadowed by modern social science frameworks that emphasize subjective interpretations over empirical data. This shift has significant implications for the reliability and credibility of scientific knowledge.

To receive my weekly posts for FREE in your email account, just submit your email below!

The way we know this is a problem is something called the reproducibility crisis. Reproducibility—the ability to replicate the results of a study using the same methods and data—is one of the foundations of science. But studies have shown that this isn’t happening. A 2016 survey published in Nature found that over 70% of researchers tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, and more than half couldn’t reproduce their own. If a study can’t be replicated, it means the findings aren’t proven at all. This issue has eroded public trust in science and made it harder to solve real-world problems.

In educational settings, this problem is compounded by the introduction of certain modern social science approaches that prioritize subjective interpretations over objective analysis. Instead of focusing on evidence-based questions like, “How does this process work?” they might ask, “How does this reflect systemic inequalities?” For example, someone might argue that labeling certain smells as “bad” is tied to cultural bias. But how do you test that? How do you prove it’s true or false? These claims often rely on interpretations rather than measurable evidence, which makes them less useful for solving real-world problems.

Another example is implicit bias testing, which claims to reliably measure unconscious prejudice and predict discriminatory behavior. While the idea has been widely adopted in workplaces and institutions, many researchers have questioned the reliability and validity of these tests. How do you objectively measure or prove the existence of a bias that the person may not be aware of? And can it accurately predict real-world actions? The evidence for these claims is often inconsistent and difficult to replicate.

Similarly, in education, the concept of learning styles suggests that students learn best when taught according to their “preferred learning style” (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, etc.). While this sounds intuitive, numerous studies have failed to find consistent evidence supporting the effectiveness of tailoring teaching methods to these styles. How do you test this claim objectively when evidence suggests that all students benefit from well-rounded teaching strategies, regardless of their preferred style?

Another common example is cultural appropriation in art and fashion, where critics argue that using certain cultural symbols is inherently exploitative or oppressive. For instance, a designer might be criticized for incorporating a traditional motif from another culture into their work. While these discussions can raise important questions about respect and representation, how do you measure whether such acts cause tangible harm? These claims often rely on subjective perceptions of offense, which are not easily quantified or tested.

I am going to attempt to convince you that, if we want to solve real problems and move forward as a society, we need to abandon this way of thinking and return to science rooted in evidence and logic.

Let’s start with what real science looks like. Science asks clear questions about the world and then tests them. For example, scientists might wonder, “Does this medicine cure disease?” They test it on a large group of people, compare the results, and share their findings so others can confirm their work. If the results hold up, we accept them as truth—at least until new evidence suggests otherwise. This process has given us life-saving breakthroughs like antibiotics, airplanes, and smartphones. Science works because it’s based on facts that can be proven and tested repeatedly.

This focus on feelings creates something called relativism. Relativism is the idea that all opinions are equally valid, no matter how ridiculous. For example, certain frameworks might argue that math is oppressive because it emphasizes correct answers. But without objective truth, how do we build bridges, design computers, or cure diseases? Imagine an engineer saying, “My truth is that this bridge will hold up,” even if the math proves otherwise. Relativism doesn’t lead to progress; it leads to chaos.

We’re already seeing the damage this mindset has caused. In some workplaces, employees are forced to sit through workshops where they’re told that their race or gender determines whether they’re an “oppressor” or “oppressed.” These sessions aren’t based on evidence but on assumptions. In schools, lessons often focus on how systems are unfair instead of teaching students how to think critically and solve problems. Instead of creating solutions, this approach fosters division and resentment. And since these frameworks reject the idea of objective truth, it’s impossible to argue against them—it’s like debating with someone who denies the sky is blue.

The truth is, these modern approaches don’t fix problems; they just find new ones to complain about. Imagine if doctors used these methods. Instead of asking, “What’s the best treatment for this disease?” they’d spend all their time arguing about how healthcare systems are unfair. While that might be worth discussing, it doesn’t help the patient. Real science, on the other hand, focuses on solutions. It asks testable questions, runs experiments, and uses evidence to make the world better.

We need to return to real, objective science. Science works because it relies on evidence, not opinions. It’s the reason we have airplanes that don’t fall out of the sky and medicines that actually cure diseases. These frameworks might sound sophisticated, but they’re a dead end. If we want to move forward, we have to focus on what’s real and testable. That’s what real science does—and it’s the only way to truly solve the problems we face.

Thanks for reading Year Of The Opposite - Travis Stoliker's Substack! This post is public so feel free to share it.

I’m sick of the crap story that we’re taught about the founding and “discovery” of America.

The narrative is skewed, overemphasizing accidental “discovery”, guilt, and grievances while ignoring the truth: history, like nature, is savage and brutal.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. 🙏

Migration, conflict, and innovation have always defined humanity. No one has a monopoly on virtue or violence. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.

The real story of America isn’t about conquest alone. It’s about people fleeing persecution and tyranny, building the greatest startup of all time—a nation founded on freedom and self-governance. We are a Republic. Unlike most countries, where governments hoard power over the people, America flipped the script: the people hold the power, and the government exists to serve them. That’s the radical, revolutionary idea that changed the world.

This is a human story, not a European one. For millennia, humans have migrated, clashed, and built societies. America was no different. But what set it apart was the founding vision: individual liberty, decentralized power, and a system that prioritized opportunity over control. These ideals didn’t just happen—they were forged in the fire of struggle, shaped by the reality that all progress requires conflict and risk.

Yes, there were injustices—there always are. But zoom out: all of history is a story of savagery and survival. What matters is not the bloodshed, but the ideas that rose above it. America’s founding principles—freedom, opportunity, and human potential—stand as a sharp break from the patterns of the past. It’s a leap forward, a step toward dignity and power for individuals.

We don’t tell this story because it’s harder to sell inspiration than guilt. It’s easier to teach grievances than the nuance of human progress. But the truth is this: the founding of America is a testament to what humans can achieve when they reject victimhood and embrace possibility. That’s the story worth telling.

Happy Thanksgiving to you all.

Love The Stolikers.

This post is public so feel free to share it.

Year Of The Opposite - Travis Stoliker's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.