I recently stepped down from leading the Future Of Work community that I had spearheaded earlier in the year, realizing that I wasn’t able to give it the time that it perhaps needed, or perhaps realizing that no one person could do get it off the ground. I’ve backed away from other commitments…
“Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal. Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology. […] Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers. We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard.”—Source
“Rudeness is merely the expression of fear. People fear they won’t get what they want. The most dreadful and unattractive person only needs to be loved, and they will open up like a flower. I’m reminded of a verse: ‘The painter’s brush touched the inchoate face with ends of nimble bristles.”—M. Gustave, The Grand Budapest Hotel
1. Determine your values. Undoubtedly my top strategy for being effective is to work backwards from death. Imagine your last few seconds on Earth and the life you have lived. What was important to you? What were your most proud contributions in life? What do you hope to be remembered for? The bottom line is that you cannot gauge ‘effectiveness’ without first determining what you value.
“I call the ideology that legitimizes and sanctions such aspirations “solutionism.” I borrow this unabashedly pejorative term from the world of architecture and urban planning, where it has come to refer to an unhealthy preoccupation with sexy, monumental, and narrow-minded solutions—the kind of stuff that wows audiences at TED Conferences—to problems that are extremely complex, fluid, and contentious. These are the kinds of problems that, on careful examination, do not have to be defined in the singular and all-encompassing ways that “solutionists” have defined them; what’s contentious, then, is not their proposed solution but their very definition of the problem itself. Design theorist Michael Dobbins has it right: solutionism presumes rather than investigates the problems that it is trying to solve, reaching “for the answer before the questions have been fully asked.” How problems are composed matters every bit as much as how problems are”—Toward a Complex, Realistic, and Moral Tech Criticism. (via timoarnall)