nod

Could you please explain what's happening here then, in terms of how Google is reading our Signal messages to provide "smart" replies?

Why is it no longer a "clear history" feature?

This is not a fully correct conclusion. I feel a need to call out the conflation of "non-hierarchical" with "structurelessness"/"without a formal structure".

There are at least 3 things that the typical org hierarchy provides:

1. The dominance hierarchy, the power structure that says who can give orders to (and/or fire people for refusal to comply with orders) whom.

2. Decision-making governance. There has to be a way to get decisions made, including what people work on.

3. Conflict resolution. How does conflict get managed and escalated.

It is not true that the necessary opposite of hierarchy is anarchy - you can't just destroy the org chart and expect nothing to replace it. The org chart typically provides all 3, but the proponents of flat/innovative org structures are usually trying to dismantle just #1 the dominance hierarchy. I totally agree that it "doesn't work" if replacements for #2 and #3 aren't implemented at the same time. Approaches like Holacracy/Sociocracy are actually quite structured! They attempt to make decision-making and conflict-resolution explicit and effective, even while trying to remove the "violence inherent in the system" of bosses/bossing.

Aw... (Stopping by later and seeing this at the top)

SMDH at myself, too, for giving in to the temptation to just blat out a quick frustration despite knowing this is exactly the kind of nerd-sniping that can get us commentariat more worked up than the actual issue.

Sorry for the noise, folks. I mean, the meta isn't total noise, but remember to spend focus on the actual climate change too, shall we?

SMDH at how they see fit to include, in the second-to-last paragraph, a scientist calling the words "tipping point" inaccurate and irresponsible... and then still made it their headline.

I don't think anyone would say an apology is sufficient response. It's only a necessary component of a full response. But if a company screws up the apology right off the bat (as so many companies do), you can tell that things are not going to turn out well for them. So it's pretty interesting that so many companies (and individuals) write such bad apologies, so much so that it's pretty rare to see an apology even as good as this one.

Will we be able to modify the plasticity of our neurons with future drugs?

For those to whom this article clicks and resonates: at what stage of ego/mental development do you think this perspective unlocks? I perceive this complexity now, but the me of just three years ago wouldn't have. In the past year I have wrestled with a complex software quality cultural transformation... But I don't think that's a reliable growth trigger, as people can stay stuck in linear thinking even as it fails. Is it solely psychological development into the self-transforming mind? Or, what would make this mindset "gettable" by more people?

This author just does such amazing work, consistently. A joy to read.

Got one in the Kickstarter and my kids love it. Great for the 7-10 age range with adult partnership. The comic story is even decent! I imagine 12+ could get pretty far on their own.

Meta thought: is this article wrong? (Partly tongue-in-cheek, partly not)

"make things fair" is a strange way to put "other countries hurt their consumers more, so we should too"