…do big things and be part of big things without being big yourself. All big empires come to an end. All big empires and end up doing more harm than good — that’s why they come to an end. Right now the tech world is having a very important affect on the evolution of planet earth — we are making it so big companies and big governments are less needed, and so the people can be truly self-determining. Google’s problems are uniquely (or perhaps not so uniquely at this point in time) their own, but by inverting the flow of control we can eliminate a lot of problems caused by the premise of centralization, discrimination being one of them.
Oxfam? Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations? Wellcome Trust? Some of those have been going since 1936. This whole paragraph couldn’t be further from the truth.
You cannot always take the way something is said, away from the context in which it is said. That’s the problem with language. It’s as much about the content as the way it’s said and whether it is a regular or irregular grammar that’s used to say it, communicating the concept is still the same and arguably all that matters. The data belongs to the concept not the wording. So concentrating on the wording of Zunger’s reply is both the wrong focus and a waste of your energy.
In a distribute/federated organisation, the weight of that dependency on other people to share your vision, to work collaboratively with a self-organising/governing team, is absolutely immense. Trust has to be higher. Both to do the right thing by themselves as well as the organisation. Either extreme and you’re goosed! That’s a John Nash game theory proof.
From one distributed consultancy owner to another, you can’t kid a kidder.