Three major protest movements in Hong Kong prior to 2019 Anti-Extradition Protest

2003 Article 23 Protest

Background: 

Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law required the city to enact laws prohibiting acts such as treason, secession, sedition, and subversion against the Central People's Government.

Protest: 

On July 1, 2003, around 500,000 people marched through downtown Hong Kong to protest the proposed national security legislation, fearing it would undermine civil liberties and freedom of expression.

Outcome: 

The massive protest led to the withdrawal of the bill after key political allies pulled their support. The government deferred and later removed the bill from the legislature.

Significance: 

This was one of the largest protests since the 1997 handover and demonstrated the strength of public opposition to perceived erosions of Hong Kong’s freedoms.

2012 Patriotic (Moral and National) Education Controversy

Background: 

The Hong Kong government proposed introducing a new school curriculum called Moral and National Education (MNE), aiming to foster national identity and teach about China’s history and culture.

Controversy: 

The curriculum was criticized for its pro-Communist Party stance and for disparaging Western democratic systems, raising concerns about political indoctrination and “brainwashing”.

Protests: 

Student groups like Scholarism and large segments of the public organized protests, including an occupation of government headquarters, hunger strikes, and mass rallies. At one point, up to 120,000 people demonstrated outside government offices.

Outcome: 

On September 8, 2012, the government backed down, making the classes optional rather than mandatory, following weeks of intense public pressure.

2014 Umbrella Revolution (Umbrella Movement)

Background: 

Triggered by a decision from China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee that restricted the nomination process for Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, effectively allowing only Beijing-approved candidates to run.

Protests: 

Starting on September 26, 2014, students and pro-democracy activists began a series of sit-in street protests, occupying major city intersections, particularly in Admiralty, Causeway Bay, and Mong Kok.

Symbol: 

Protesters used umbrellas to shield themselves from police pepper spray and tear gas, giving the movement its name.

Scale: 

At its peak, the movement saw over 100,000 people occupying parts of the city, bringing daily life to a standstill.

Demands: 

Protesters called for genuine universal suffrage and the right to freely nominate and elect Hong Kong’s leader.

Outcome: 

The protests ended in December 2014 without the government meeting the protesters’ demands, but the movement had a lasting impact on Hong Kong’s political consciousness and activism.

These three events are pivotal in Hong Kong’s recent history, each reflecting deep public concerns about autonomy, freedom, and identity under Chinese sovereignty.

Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have tightened its control over various regions and policies, often at the expense of commitments or promises made in international agreements or foundational documents.

1. Tibet Autonomy:

After promising Tibet a form of self-rule when it became part of China, the Chinese Communist Party gradually took away its autonomy, imposed direct control, and restricted Tibetan traditions and religious practices.

2. Hong Kong Autonomy and Suffrage:

Despite promising Hong Kong a high level of self-government and the eventual right to freely elect its leaders, the Chinese Communist Party has steadily reduced Hong Kong’s autonomy, tightened political control, and failed to deliver on promised democratic reforms.

3. WTO Market Opening:

Although China promised to open its markets and allow fair competition for foreign businesses when it joined the World Trade Organization, it has kept many restrictions in place, favoring its own companies and limiting foreign access in important industries.

4. 1989 Tiannanmen Square
The 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre began with large student-led protests in Beijing demanding political reform, greater freedoms, and an end to corruption. By early June, hundreds of thousands of people had gathered in and around Tiananmen Square, drawing support from workers, farmers, and others across China. On the night of June 3–4, the Chinese government sent in troops and tanks to forcibly clear the square, resulting in soldiers opening fire on protesters and bystanders, with hundreds—possibly thousands—killed and many more arrested. The government has since suppressed all public discussion of the event, and it remains a highly sensitive topic in China.

Three Observations about an upcoming war outbreak 戰爭即將爆發前會出現的三個跡象

A Ukrainian resident of Kyiv shared his observations of key warning signs experienced in the city prior to the Russian invasion.

Foreign Embassies Issued Warnings and Evacuated Personnel
Embassies began alerting citizens and staff about the imminent threat and organized evacuations for diplomats and, in some cases, their families and nationals.

Commercial Airlines Suspended Flights
International airlines halted flights to and from Ukraine, disrupting normal travel and signaling heightened security concerns.

Proxies and Affiliates of the Invader Began Leaving the Country
Individuals with ties to the invading forces or their supporters started evacuating, indicating anticipation of conflict and potential insider knowledge.

These developments collectively underscored the growing likelihood of war in the days leading up to the invasion.

[Music] The Ludlows - James Horner

Movie: Legends of the Fall (1994) 
Music: The Ludlows
Genre: Soft

Movie Story Plot:

Comment:

- The best acting of Bard Pitt I have ever seen.
- It is a story mixed Father and sons, brotherhood blood and tears, love and hostility, revenge and forgiveness.

Everything about British National (Overseas)

British National (Overseas) (BN(O)) is a special type of British nationality created for residents of Hong Kong before the 1997 handover to China. It was introduced in 1985 to allow people who were British Dependent Territories Citizens (BDTC) connected with Hong Kong to retain a form of British nationality after sovereignty transferred to China on 1 July 1997.

Who are BN(O)s?
People who registered as British National (Overseas) before 1 July 1997, mainly Hong Kong residents with BDTC status. About 2.9 million people hold BN(O) status, with around 720,000 holding valid BN(O) passports as of 2025.

Nationality status:
BN(O)s are British nationals and Commonwealth citizens, but not British citizens. They do not have the automatic right to live or work in the UK without a visa and are subject to UK immigration controls.

Rights and privileges:
BN(O)s can hold British passports and receive consular protection from UK diplomatic posts outside China, Hong Kong, and Macau. They are exempt from visa requirements for short visits (less than six months) to the UK. They have some rights in the UK as Commonwealth citizens, such as voting rights and eligibility to serve in most civil service roles and the armed forces.

Historic Background about BN(O)s:

Before the creation of British National (Overseas) (BN(O)) status, residents of Hong Kong held a form of British nationality called British Dependent Territories Citizen (BDTC), formerly known as Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) under the British Nationality Act 1948. Under the British Nationality Act 1948, Hong Kong residents were CUKCs, which gave them British nationality with rights tied to the colonies, including Hong Kong. This status was based on jus soli (right of the soil), meaning birth in the territory conferred nationality.

The British Nationality Act 1981, effective from 1983, redefined British nationality categories. It replaced CUKC status with new categories, including British Dependent Territories Citizenship (BDTC) for Hong Kong residents. BDTC status was linked specifically to the dependent territory (Hong Kong) and did not grant the right to live or work in the UK. The Act was passed during the period when the UK was negotiating the future of Hong Kong with China, which culminated in the Sino-British Joint Declaration (1984), agreeing that Hong Kong would be handed over to China in 1997.

The UK government foresaw that after the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997, Hong Kong residents would lose their BDTC status because Hong Kong would no longer be a British dependent territory. To maintain a form of British nationality for Hong Kong residents without granting full British citizenship or the right of abode in the UK, the UK created the British National (Overseas) status under the Hong Kong Act 1985. BN(O) status was a voluntary registration available only to BDTCs connected with Hong Kong between 1987 and 1997. It allowed holders to retain a British nationality status and hold BN(O) passports after the handover. However, BN(O) status did not grant the right to live or work in the UK and holders were subject to UK immigration controls. Those BDTCs who did not register as BN(O) and had no other nationality became British Overseas Citizens (BOCs) after the handover, a status with even fewer rights.

Political and social context:
The British government was concerned about a potential large influx of Hong Kong residents to the UK after 1997, similar to the migration of Ugandan Asians in the 1970s, so it deliberately limited the rights attached to BN(O) status. The 1981 nationality changes and BN(O) creation effectively cut off full British citizenship rights from the majority of Hong Kong’s population, especially ethnic Chinese residents, reflecting the UK's intention to relinquish sovereignty over Hong Kong and control migration. This led to criticism that the UK government "abandoned" many Hong Kong residents by denying them full British citizenship and the right of abode in the UK.

Sino-British Joint Declaration (1984) 

The Sino-British Joint Declaration is a treaty signed on 19 December 1984 between the United Kingdom and the People’s Republic of China, which set the terms for the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong from Britain to China on 1 July 1997. Under this agreement, Hong Kong would become a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China, maintaining a high degree of autonomy except in foreign affairs and defense. The declaration guaranteed that Hong Kong’s existing capitalist system, legal system, and way of life would remain unchanged for 50 years after the handover, until 2047, under the principle of “one country, two systems.” The treaty was registered with the United Nations in 1985 and remains legally binding according to the UK government. 

The background to this agreement lies in Hong Kong’s colonial history: it had been a British colony since 1842, with the New Territories leased to Britain for 99 years starting in 1898. As the lease approached expiration in 1997, Britain and China negotiated to peacefully resolve Hong Kong’s future, balancing China’s sovereignty claims with the need to maintain Hong Kong’s economic and political stability. The Joint Declaration laid out China’s basic policies for governing Hong Kong after the transfer, including establishing the SAR with a high degree of autonomy and preserving its social and economic systems separate from mainland China. Since 2014, China has claimed the treaty is no longer legally binding, arguing it expired with the handover, while the UK insists it remains in force.  Despite these disputes, the Joint Declaration remains a foundational document governing the relationship between the UK, China, and Hong Kong.

Anti-Extradition Compaign (2019) and National Secruity Law (2020) 

The Anti-Extradition Campaign in 2019 began as widespread protests in Hong Kong against a proposed extradition bill that would have allowed suspects to be sent to mainland China for trial. Many Hongkongers feared this law would undermine the city’s judicial independence and expose residents to unfair trials and political persecution. The protests quickly grew into a broader pro-democracy movement demanding greater political freedoms and opposing perceived encroachments by Beijing on Hong Kong’s autonomy. 

In response to these protests and ongoing unrest, China imposed the National Security Law (NSL) on Hong Kong in 2020. This law criminalizes acts of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces, with penalties up to life imprisonment. It grants Beijing broad powers to intervene in Hong Kong’s legal system, including establishing a mainland-controlled security office exempt from local jurisdiction. The law also expands police powers to conduct searches without warrants, freeze assets, and censor online content. It applies not only to Hong Kong residents but also to foreigners and non-permanent residents, and it restricts those found guilty from holding public office. The National Security Law was introduced to suppress dissent and restore control after the 2019 protests, but it has been widely criticized for undermining the freedoms promised under the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. The law marks a significant tightening of Beijing’s grip on Hong Kong, effectively curbing political opposition and freedom of expression in the city. The UK has criticized China for actions seen as undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy, such as imposing the National Security Law in 2020 and altering electoral laws, which it views as breaches of the Joint Declaration.

BNO Visa (2021) and the U.K. Government 

The British National (Overseas) (BN(O)) visa scheme was launched by the UK government on 31 January 2021 to provide a pathway for Hong Kong residents holding BN(O) status and their eligible family members to live, work, and study in the UK. This visa reflects the UK’s historic and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong who chose to maintain their ties with the UK before the 1997 handover. The visa allows an initial stay of 30 months, extendable by another 30 months or up to 5 years, after which holders can apply for indefinite leave to remain (settlement) and, subsequently, British citizenship. 

The UK government states that the policy is “in recognition of the unprecedented circumstances in Hong Kong, the UK’s historic commitment to the people of Hong Kong through the Joint Declaration, and our unique obligations towards those who elected to retain their ties with the UK through obtaining BN(O) status.” The scheme was introduced in response to Beijing’s imposition of the National Security Law on Hong Kong in 2020, which the UK government viewed as undermining the autonomy and freedoms promised under the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. The BN(O) visa offers a safe alternative for those concerned about the changing political environment in Hong Kong. It does not require applicants to have a BN(O) passport or meet minimum income or skills requirements, but applicants must show they can support themselves initially.

[Music] Gently / 再会 - 八雲とパイ - 和田 薫

Animation: 3X3 EYES (1991) 
Music: Gently
Genre: Soft

Animation: 3X3 EYES 聖魔伝説 (1995) 
Music: 再会 - 八雲とパイ  (Reunion - Yakumo and Pai)
Genre: Soft 

[Music] Ever Green Days - 和田 薫

Animation: To Heart (1999) 
Music: Ever Green Days
Genre: Soft

[Joke] Bet against President Trump

A Taiwanese tag Trump betting he is going to chicken out (aka "Trump always chicken out (TACO)") again. How dare him tagging on Trump's X account and thousands of People are asking for a streaming of penis-cutting process. LOL.

btw, his English couldn't be worse...he needs to cut his penis no matter winning or failing the bet, according to his English statement (but we know his statement in Chinese anyway)

[Jun 22, 2025] My stance on Israel-Iran War

My understanding of Western support for Israel goes back to the context of World War II. During the war, Jews were targeted and exterminated by the Nazis at the cost of blood, and the West was unable to stop it. This is the biggest reason for their support of the "Jewish restoration state," which can be seen as a form of compensation.

I understand that the Promised Land is also home to Islamic people who have lived there for hundreds of years, and looking back, there certainly could have been better ways to handle this.

Returning to the time and context of Israel's founding, many Islamic countries took the destruction of Israel as their mission. Strictly speaking, Israel did not antagonize Islam; rather, Islam antagonized Israel. From Day 1, Israel has been defending itself in a "dead or alive" manner.

Looking further, more and more Islamic countries have signed peace agreements with Israel. Has Israel attacked them since then? No, it's just peaceful coexistence benefiting everyone. Only a few regimes still oppose Israel. Hamas's surprise attack on Israel was crushed, and to this day, Iran's regime being hit is well deserved.

[Music] 勇壮なるナデシコ - 服部 隆之

Animation: 機動戦艦ナデシコ  (1996)
Music: 勇壮なるナデシコ (Valiant Nadesico)
Genre: Epic

[AI] Surreal - AI Yuri

 

wow....speechless AI video.

[Jun 17, 2025] News: Peace through Strength

 

[Music] 流れる雲のように - 和田 薫

Animation: 銀河戦国群雄伝ライ (1994)
Music: 流れる雲のように (Like drifting clouds)
Genre: Soft

[Music] 太陽神殿の崩壊 - 横山 菁児

Movie: 聖闘士星矢 真紅の少年伝説 (1989)
Music: 太陽神殿の崩壊 (The Collapse of Apollo's Shrine)
Genre: Soft

[Jun 14, 2025] Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Addresses the Iranian People

This is a textbook speech. It addresses the people living under a hostile regime, clearly stating that the target is not the people themselves, but the regime that has been oppressing them. Even if we directly help you overthrow the regime, the ones who will govern afterward are still your own people. The final stretch of the war still requires you to rise up, resist, and build the country you desire. 

Why another regime comes to my mind too?

[Story] The Mexican Fisherman and the Businessman

 

An American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

The Mexican replied, “only a little while”. The American then asked why didn’t he stay out longer and catch more fish? The Mexican said he had enough to support his family’s immediate needs. The American then asked, “but what do you do with the rest of your time?”

The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siestas with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine, and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life.” The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing, and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually New York City, where you will run your expanding enterprise.”

The Mexican fisherman asked, “But, how long will this all take?”

To which the American replied, “15 – 20 years.”

“But what then?” Asked the Mexican.

The American laughed and said, “That’s the best part. When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions!”

“Millions – then what?”

The American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your (grand)kids, take siestas with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.”

The fisherman, still smiling, looked up and said, "Isn't that what I'm doing right now?"

-Author Unknown

[Jun 12, 2019] A date destined to be marked in the History of Hong Kong.

6 years ago on this exact same day, it sparked a rally, protest and fight against the totalitarian regime. It marked a watershed of Hong Kong history and we shall never forget!

[Jun 10, 2025] Anti-ICE operations and riots in Los Angeles

The anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles are a response to recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids targeting undocumented immigrants, which have sparked widespread demonstrations and clashes with law enforcement. The protests began after federal agents executed search warrants at several businesses suspected of employing undocumented workers, leading to arrests and public outcry. Demonstrators have gathered near federal buildings, including immigration courts and detention centers, demanding an end to ICE operations in the city, which is a sanctuary jurisdiction.

The protests have involved thousands of people blocking major freeways like the 101, setting fires to self-driving cars and dumpsters, and engaging in confrontations with police. Law enforcement has responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, flash bangs, and non-lethal foam projectiles to disperse crowds. Authorities have declared unlawful assemblies multiple times and made numerous arrests. Some protesters have thrown concrete, rocks, electric scooters, and fireworks at police, leading to injuries on both sides

The arguments of anti-ICE supporters in Los Angeles center on opposition to the federal immigration enforcement raids and the broader immigration policies under the Trump administration. Key points include:

• They view the ICE raids as overly aggressive and indiscriminate, targeting not just criminals but also innocent, hardworking immigrants and their families, which they see as a violation of fundamental rights and due process.
• Protesters and local leaders argue that the deployment of National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles is an unlawful overreach of federal power, undermining state and local authority and escalating tensions unnecessarily.
• Many activists frame their opposition as a defense of immigrant communities striving for the American dream, emphasizing the personal and communal impact of deportations on families and neighborhoods.
• The protests are also seen as part of a broader movement against what supporters describe as authoritarianism and a crackdown on immigrant rights, with calls to end ICE operations and deportations that they argue tear apart communities.
• Union members and community organizations have joined the protests, highlighting concerns about labor rights and the targeting of workers in ICE raids.
• Local officials like California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have criticized the federal response as heavy-handed and counterproductive, reinforcing the protesters' stance that the federal government's actions are exacerbating unrest rather than restoring order.

Comments:

My stance is straightforward: the U.S. government is responsible and accountable primarily to the lives and well-being of American citizens, not to immigrants—especially those who are in the country illegally. Some argue that illegal immigrants have a "right" to pursue the American Dream or similar aspirations, but frankly, no such right exists for those who have entered the country unlawfully. To put it simply, it’s like breaking into someone’s house and then claiming the right to live there. That’s unreasonable.

I believe that deporting illegal immigrants is the correct course of action. However, discretionary decisions can and should be made on a case-by-case basis, particularly for individuals who pose no threat and contribute positively to society during their stay. There are established legal pathways for migration, such as obtaining a visa or green card, or seeking asylum if there are legitimate grounds. These laws must be respected. If illegal immigrants disagree with the government’s actions, they have the right to challenge them through legal channels, such as filing lawsuits, to seek lawful status.

Regarding supporters of the Anti-ICE movement, I view many as hypocritical, abusing and concealing their true motives beneath the ideology of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Why do I say this? I agree that society should help and provide aid to those in genuine need. However, there is a crucial distinction between offering help voluntarily and claiming that such help is an entitlement. The former reflects a majority’s willingness to assist, while the latter is a minority demanding that the majority is obligated to do so. When the majority refuses, this is framed as a violation of DEI principles.

This progressive movement has evolved to a point where it effectively hijacks mainstream society, compelling the majority to conform to the demands of a vocal minority. This dynamic is evident not only in the Anti-ICE protests but also across industries such as movie and game production and employment, where DEI policies are increasingly mandated.

Moreover, there are numerous reports highlighting the deterioration of public safety in cities due to the influx of immigrants and the perceived leniency toward criminal behavior, including drug-related offenses. The embrace of DEI is forcing mainstream society to accept the values and lifestyles of minority groups, which many view as unfair. For these reasons, I support President Trump’s stance on immigration enforcement.

[Music] No Sacrifice, No Victory - Steve Jablonsky

Movie: Transfromers (2007)
Music: No Sacrifice, No Victory
Genre: Epic

[Music] 運命 - 佐藤 直紀

X the Animation (1999)
Music 運命 (Destiny)
Genre: Epic

The Courage To Be Disliked: How to Free Yourself, Change Your Life and Achieve Real Happiness (Ichiro Kishimi, Fumitake Koga)

 [Book Review]

"The Courage to Be Disliked" by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga is a self-help book based on the principles of Adlerian psychology. Written as a Socratic dialogue between a philosopher and a young man, the book challenges conventional beliefs about happiness, self-worth, and interpersonal relationships. The core message is that happiness is a choice and that individuals can free themselves from past traumas, social expectations, and fear of rejection to lead fulfilling lives.

I rate this book as the most insightful and comprehensive observations on meaning of life which I have ever read.

Concept 1: Denial of Trauma (Chapter 1)

People are not bonded nor restricted by past experiences but by the meanings they assign to them. Trauma does not dictate one’s life; rather, people choose how to interpret and respond to past events. The key idea here is that people can change their present and future by changing their perspectives on the past.

Concept 2: Discarding the Need for Recognition & Other People's Task (Chapter 2 & 3)

People often seek approval from others, leading to unnecessary suffering. Seeking recognition is a burden. people should not live their lives to please others but instead focus on living according to their own values.

We should learn the concept of "separation of tasks," which means that we are only responsible for our own tasks, not others’ reactions or choices. For example, we can choose to be kind, but we cannot control how others respond. This principle frees us from guilt or obligation to “fix” others’ lives, fostering independence and reducing interpersonal conflict.

By freeing ourselves from the desire to be liked, people can live more authentically. true freedom comes from having "the courage to be disliked"—accepting that not everyone will approve of you and being okay with it. This liberates individuals from the constant pressure of trying to fit in or meet societal expectations.

Concept 3: Living in the Present Moment (Chapter 4)

Many people believe they cannot be happy until they achieve certain goals (e.g., career success, wealth, or romantic relationships). However, happiness is not something to be pursued in the future but something one chooses in the present. By choosing to be happy now and engaging in meaningful actions, people can lead fulfilling lives without waiting for external conditions to change.

Concept 4: True Happiness lies in Contribution to the Community (Chapter 5)

True happiness is found in relationships based on mutual respect and contribution rather than competition or hierarchy. People should strive for a sense of belonging through acts of service rather than seeking superiority over others.

Quit: The Power of nowing when to walk away (Annie Duke)

 [Book Review]

No matter in the East or West, there is a pervasive belief that perseverance and persistence are always virtuous. We have heard 10,000 hours to professionalize somebody to thrive, which could lead to success. However, the line between perseverance and stubbornness is so thin that the author advocates a strategic view of quitting as a vital skill in decision-making.

Key Themes:

• Quitting as a Strength: Duke emphasizes that quitting is not synonymous with failure. Instead, it is a strategic choice that can lead to better outcomes by redirecting resources from unproductive endeavors to more promising ones. 

• Psychological Barriers: The book delves into cognitive biases such as the sunk cost fallacy and loss aversion, which often trap individuals in unfruitful pursuits due to emotional attachments or fear of loss.

• Kill Criteria: Duke introduces the concept of “kill criteria”—predefined conditions that signal when to abandon a project. This proactive approach helps mitigate emotional decision-making and facilitates timely exits from failing ventures.

• Identity and Quitting: The book explores how personal and professional identities can complicate the quitting process. Often, individuals resist quitting because they have become integral to their sense of self. Duke examines the psychological mechanisms behind this resistance and offers strategies for disentangling self-worth from specific pursuits.

• Strategic Decision-Making: Duke applies principles from game theory and decision science to demonstrate how individuals can better assess their options when outcomes are uncertain. She emphasizes the importance of evaluating the expected value of different choices and considering opportunity costs.

Annie Duke offers a practical framework for making better decisions about when to quit by combining behavioral science, decision theory, and real-world examples.

1. Kill Criteria
This is one of the central tools Duke advocates.
Definition: Pre-established conditions that tell you in advance when it’s time to walk away.
Purpose: To avoid making emotionally-driven decisions in the moment.
How to implement:
Define success metrics for your goal (e.g., revenue, health, progress).
Identify clear thresholds that, if crossed, will trigger quitting.
Example: A startup founder might say, “If we don’t hit 5% user growth for three consecutive months, we’ll shut down.”

2. Use of “Outside View” and Advisors
People often fall into the “inside view” trap — being too close to the situation. Instead, she suggests consulting disinterested parties who can evaluate your situation without bias. Having a “quitting coach” or accountability partner helps enforce the kill criteria.

3. Avoiding the Sunk Cost Fallacy
Many continue with a project simply because they’ve already invested time, money, or effort. Duke urges us to ignore past costs and base decisions purely on future expected value. Ask: “If I had not started this, would I start it now, knowing what I know?”

4. Incremental Commitment Is Dangerous
We often commit in stages (a bit more money, a bit more time), without reassessing the big picture. Instead, Duke recommends regular decision audits to evaluate whether continuing is still the best path forward.

5. The Quit-Persevere Spectrum
Duke reframes decisions not as binary (“quit or don’t”) but as part of a spectrum. This allows for more nuanced decisions like pausing, pivoting, or scaling down rather than full exit.

6. Time to Quit ≠ Things Have Gone Terribly Wrong
Waiting until a disaster strikes is too late. Smart quitting often happens when things are going okay, but not optimally. The best quitters quit early, not in desperation.

🧠3 Key Mental Models Used

Expected Value (EV): Continue only if the expected value of staying exceeds alternatives.
Opportunity Cost: What are you giving up by continuing?
Loss Aversion: Recognize how fear of losses can cloud rational judgment.

🔢 1. Expected Value (EV)

Concept: In finance or poker, EV is a quantitative calculation. But Duke encourages using it qualitatively in most life decisions.

How she uses it:
You’re not expected to assign precise probabilities or dollar values.
Instead, ask yourself:
“What is the likely upside if I keep going? What is the downside if I don’t?”
Think in probabilistic terms, like:
“Is continuing likely to yield better returns than switching paths?”
✅ Qualitative example:
“Staying in this job might eventually lead to a promotion, but the environment is toxic and draining. Quitting and finding a healthier role might have a better expected value for my well-being and career in the long run.”

💸 2. Opportunity Cost

Concept: This is traditionally a quantitative model in economics, but Duke uses it as a mindset.

How she uses it:
Recognize that continuing with one thing means not doing something else potentially better.
Ask:
“What am I giving up by continuing here?”
“Is there a more rewarding use of my time, energy, or capital?”
✅ Qualitative example:
Instead of grinding through a failing business, could you be using that time and skill to launch a different product that’s already showing traction?

⚖️ 3. Loss Aversion

Concept: A behavioral economics model rooted in prospect theory — it says people feel the pain of loss more than the pleasure of equivalent gain.

How she uses it:
Mostly qualitative, to explain why people stay too long.
Recognize emotional traps like:
“I’ve already invested so much…”
“Quitting means admitting I was wrong…”
✅ Practical tip:
Duke encourages making quitting criteria in advance, when emotions aren’t involved, to avoid letting loss aversion distort your judgment.