►
From YouTube: Staying with the Trouble: Building Systems We Can Care For - Jabe Bloom (Red Hat) OpenShift Commons
Description
Staying with the Trouble: Building Systems We Can Care For
Jabe Bloom and Diane Mueller (Red Hat)
January 22, 2021
#OpenShiftCommons Briefing
#TransformationFriday
A
And
we're
live
all
right.
Everybody
welcome
back
to
openshift
commons
and
to
the
transformation
fridays
briefing
series
that
I
have
the
pleasure
of
doing
with
different
members
of
the
global
transformation
office
from
red
hat
and
a
lot
of
the
times.
Jay
bloom
is
my
special
guest
and
he
is
again
today-
and
I
am
totally
thrilled
to
have
him
here
for
a
topic
about
staying
with
the
trouble
and
building
systems.
We
can
care
for
and
just
a
little
background
on
this,
the
last
briefing
we
did
in
2020.
A
I
think
I'm
pronouncing
that
right
and
it
was
an
unexpected
book
around
the
themes
of
systems.
Thinking-
and
I
am
so
grateful
that
that
jabe
did
recommend
it
and
it
may
seem
an
unlikely
book
for
systems
thinking,
but
once
you
dive
into
it
and
realize
what
it
is
that
she's
talking
about
and
the
inter
play,
the
being
with
the
oddkins
and
some
of
the
words
that
she
uses
and
reshapes
for
her
purposes.
A
It
really
does
come
to
a
point
where
it's
talking
about
collaboration
and
the
collaborations
that
we
need
to
make
to
stay
in
in
the
trenches,
whether
it's
in
our
tech
organizations
or
in
our
activism
or
any
part
of
the
world
that
we
live
in,
and
there
was
a
wonderful
quote
at
the
beginning,
and
I
won't
read
the
whole
thing.
But
I
will
read
this
that
the
last
half
of
it
and
she
says,
staying
with
the
trouble,
does
not
require
such
a
relationship
to
times
called
the
future.
A
Or
salvik
futures,
but
as
mortal
creatures
entwined
in
a
myriad
unfinished
configurations
of
places,
times
matters
and
meaning
and
with
all
of
the
stuff
that's
been
going
on
over
the
past
four
years
and
the
transitions
and
everything
we
are
and
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
what
she
says
really
resonates
with,
where
we're
all
probably
at
and
thinking
about,
taking
our
lives
forward
and
our
organizations
forward.
So
I'm
really
thinking
that
today,
I
encourage
all
of
you
to
read
the
book.
A
It's
also
on
audio,
so
you
can
audio,
listen
to
it
as
well,
but
donna
haraway
is
one
of
I
think
one
of
the
great
thinkers
on
this
topic
and
I'm
really
looking
forward
to
this
conversation
with
jade.
So
I'm
going
to
pause
and
stop
sharing
and
let
jabe
introduce
himself
and
take
the
topic
away
and
again
grateful
for
the
the
introduction
to
donna,
haraway
and
also
the
movie
that
that
was
made
with
her
and
in
collaboration
I'll
find
a
link
to
that
too.
That
was
an
awesome
treat
over
the
christmas
holiday.
B
B
B
She's
writing
this
she's
very
interested
in
science
fiction,
close
collaborators
with
a
bunch
of
sci
science
fiction,
writers
and
and
she's
interested
in
the
idea
that
kind
of
cyborgs
are
always
at
the
time
that
she's
writing
kind
of
war
war
machines,
humans
that
have
been
embedded
with
kind
of
weapons
or
mechanisms
to
you
know
be
aggressive.
Angry
were
making
things,
and
one
of
the
things
she
becomes
interested
in
is
whether
or
not
she
can
repurpose
the
idea
of
a
cyborg
from
a
feminist
perspective.
B
B
Relationships
with
technology
that
looks
like
cyborg,
like
it
looks
like
like
humans,
regularly
extend
their
themselves
by
attaching
themselves
or
becoming
entangled
with
technology,
with
with
material
artifacts
with
artificial
systems,
both
that
enable
them
to
do
things,
but
also
commit
them
to
doing
certain
things.
So
in
particular,
humans
who
become
cyborgs
then
become
committed
to
caring
for
the
the
machinery
that
now
is
part
of
them,
and,
and
so
harway
spends
a
good
deal
of
time.
A
B
Steegler
kind
of
goes
all
the
way
back
to
the
the
myth
of
prometheus
and
suggests
the
myth
of
prometheus
and
epimetheus,
who
epimetheus
is
prometheus's
brother
so,
and
this
will
kind
of
like
start
towards
some
of
the
interesting
discussions.
I
think
prometheus
means
forethought
and
epimesis
means
afterthought,
and
the
gods
basically
give
prometheus
and
epimetheus
who
are
the
titans
who
are
who
are
titans.
B
B
I
got
this
from
one
of
my
other
phd
students
that
I
worked
with
dr
ann.
I'm
gonna
space
on
her
last
name,
damn
it
anyway
anyway.
So
the
three
are
this
human-centered
design,
cyborgs
and
actor
network
right.
So
these
three
are
three
different
ways
of
thinking
about
the
relationships
that
humans
have
to
technology.
B
So
the
first
one
is
like
what
almost
everyone
thinks
about,
and
it's
human-centered
and
the
idea
of
this
is
that
there's
lots
of
human
beings
and
each
of
them
is
an
individual
agent
in
a
system
they
they
control
all
the
agency
in
the
system
and
they
make
decisions.
They
make
good
rational
decisions
about
things
and
therefore
they
can
decide
to
do
things
like
make
a
hammer,
but
they
use
the
hammer.
B
They
do
things
with
the
hammer
and
the
agency
is
with
the
human
being
and
therefore
the
hammer
doesn't
work
well
or
the
hammer
doesn't
work
quite
right
or
you
know
there
could
be
a
better
hammer.
It's
because
the
technology
isn't
matched
well
to
the
human
that
somehow
you
could
make
a
better
hammer
because
it
would
be
more
ergonomic.
B
It
would
fit
in
your
hand
better
or
it
would
have
a
better
balance
or
it
would
somehow
interact
with
other
technologies
better,
but
all
of
it
has
to
do
with
the
centering
of
the
design
activity
of
the
technology
of
the
artificial
system
on
matching
the
technology
to
the
human's,
cognitive
abilities
or
physical
abilities
yeah.
So
it
becomes
human
centered,
in
which
case
kind
of
technology
is
inert.
It's
objective.
It
doesn't
have
politics,
it
doesn't
have
agency,
it
doesn't
do
things.
B
Humans
do
things
with
technology,
yeah
and-
and
you
can
hear
this
kind
of
idea,
this
way
of
thinking
in
things
like
guns,
don't
kill
people,
people
kill
people
with
guns
right
like
the
idea
is
that
guns
are
inert.
They
don't
do
anything
yeah,
there's
another
version
of
this
kind
of
way
of
thinking
about
designing
and
material
interactions
and
technology
interactions,
and
that
was
from
a
guy
named
bruno
latour,
latour
and
and
harway
consider
themselves
kind
of
co-travelers.
They
they
work
together.
B
They
talk
together
about
similar
things,
but
they
have
subtly
different
opinions.
Recording
has
started,
they
have
suddenly
different
ideas
about
how
how
this
kind
of
works
and
one
of
the
things
that
they
say
is
this
one
of
the
things
that
latour
says
is
this
is
that
things
objects,
technologies,
hammers
guns,
nails
all
the
things
around.
You
have
agency
or
they
they're.
B
They
are
agents
right
and
so
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
rewiring
of
what
we
mean
by
agency,
so
like
agency
for
in
a
in
a
kind
of
humanism,
perspective
means
like
the
ability
to
make
decisions
in
the
tours
world.
He
wants
to
say
that
that
technology
is
it
has
agency,
because
it
can
influence
your
decisions.
It
can
change
what's
possible
right,
and
so
he
would
say
something
like
guns
have
agency
and
how
do
guns
have
agency?
B
B
Gun
in
the
room
and
I
felt
threatened
by
the
other
person,
the
interactions
would
be
very
different
because
I
might
be
worried
that
he's
going
to
grab
the
gun
or
he
might
be
worried
that
I'm
going
to
grab
the
gun,
in
which
case
the
gun.
The
presence
of
the
gun
changes
these
social
interactions
that
I'm
having
right.
It
changes
what's
possible.
B
It
changes
how
I
imagine
this
system
is
unfolding
and
therefore
I
react
differently
and
therefore
the
gun
has
agency.
So
in
in
lictorian
language,
you
are
a
gun
man
or
a
gun
human
you,
you
are
merged
with
technology
as
a
unit
as
a
system
where
the
human
and
the
gun
become
kind
of
a
greater
system
yeah,
but
also
there's
this
lack
of
it's
a
network
theory
right.
So
it's
not
it's
there's
not
an
entanglement.
B
There's
a
set
of
relationships
and
different
relationships,
produce
different
kind
of
outcomes
or
different
expectations
of
outcomes.
Haraway.
The
is
a
third
version
of
this,
and
one
of
the
things
I'll
say
about
highway
is
harway.
Also
considers
herself
kind
of
a
co-traveler
with
it's
about
stingers
and
stengers
has
an
idea
that
she
calls
cosmopolita
cosmopolitan
cosmopolitanism
and
what
she
means
by
cosmopolitics
is
that
this
idea
that
the
so
cosmos
is
the
opposite.
The
cosmos
is
the
totality
of
all
all
localities
right
so
in
in
greek
thought.
B
B
So
complexity
is
with
entanglements
she's
interested
in
this
idea
of
the
way
that
of
thinking
through
a
way
in
which
things
are
entangled
with
each
other.
So
if
human-centered
is
like
agents
completely
independent
of
each
other,
an
actor
network
is
agents
that
are
in
a
network
with
each
other.
They
have
relationships
with
each
other
cyborgian
theory.
B
B
So
this
idea
that
we
have
these
kind
of
extended,
sensations
or
imaginations
or
ways
of
thinking
about
the
world
in
which
we're
extended
seem
to
be
not
just
kind
of
like
a
metaphor,
but
actually
the
way
our
minds
work
with
the
world
and
andy
clark
would
say
you
know,
there's
other
examples
of
this.
The
way
in
which
he
actually
has
a
book
called,
we've
always
been
cyborgs
and
and
which
is
excellent.
People
should
read
it
and
what
he
would
say
in
that
book
is
everyone's
a
cyborg.
B
We
all
extend
our
minds
using
technology
all
the
time,
and
he
says
you
know
the
really
simplest
version
of
this
is,
if
I
give
you
a
difficult
enough
mathematical
problem
like
like,
let's
say
six
figure
edition
or
six
figure
multiplication
multiplication
or
division.
You'll
almost
certainly
take
out
a
piece
of
paper
and
start
doing
the
math
on
a
piece
of
paper,
or
you
know,
obviously
a
calculator
nowadays.
B
But
let's
say
you
only
had
a
piece
of
paper
and
what
he
says
is
that
the
thing
to
imagine
is
that
you're
actually
using
the
paper
to
extend
your
mind's
ability
to
remember
to
it's
an
extension
of
memory
so
that
you
can
remember
where
you
are,
and
you
can
manipulate
this
complex
set
of
symbols
by
extending
your
memory,
and
so,
in
which
case
the
paper
has
become
part
of
your
mind.
It's
become
part
of
the
way
you
think
about
things.
B
So
haraway
is
very
interested
in
this
initial
in
this
initial
phase
of
her
career,
how
cyborg
theory
this
this
entanglement
of
humans
and
technology
kind
of
plays
out
in
relation
to
these
other
theories?
I
think
so.
I
I
also
quoted
the
the
same
quote
that
you
did,
which
so
I
won't
reread
it.
But
the
idea
here
is
that
we
don't
necessarily
need
these.
B
B
We
need
to
understand
how
we
got
here,
and
so
we
need
to
kind
of
trace
history
and
understand
the
decisions
and
manifestations
and
materializations
that
got
us
to
our
present
location,
and
so
we
can
understand
where
we
are
and
then
we
also
need
to
have
an
idea
of
where
we're
going.
We
need
to
have
a
future.
We
need
to
have
a
goal.
We
have
an
imagined
future
right
and
and
for
for
horoway
in
this
particular
version
of
time.
B
She
she
wants
to
talk
about
an
entanglement
of
time
and
so
that
the
past
and
the
future
be
are
somehow
entangled
in
the
present,
and
I
the
way
I
like
to
try
to
explain
this
is:
is
this
I
think
for
haraway
the
the
past
is
is
kind
of
like
a
forcing
function.
You
you
you've,
materialized
or
made
decisions
that
are
pushing
you
into
the
future.
You
can't
stay
where
you
are,
and
but
the
options
that
you
have
in
the
future
make
you
have
to
make
decisions.
B
B
B
B
Carway,
probably
wouldn't
like
me
to
use
the
word
natural
there,
but
so
that
one
of
the
ways
to
think
about
it
is
that,
like
without
without
agency
without
humans
involved
in
a
situation
in
one,
would
imagine
that
the
situation
would
simply
unfold
towards
a
future.
That
would
be
somewhat
mechanistic
that
it
would
be
kind
of
in
in
in
philosophical
terminology
would
be
it
would
be,
but
it
would
be
a
materialistic
determination.
B
And
so
this
leads,
I
think,
for
her
way
to
want
to
expand
the
the
ideas
about
which
agents
are
important
and
and
how
they're
important
so
that
we
get
this
odd
kin
concepts
that
she
starts
talking
about,
where
we
get
an
idea
that
it's
not
just
humans,
that
it
shouldn't
be
human-centered.
It
should
be
kind
of
centered
around
all
life
on
the
planet,
for
for
hard
way
where
you
get
other
species
and
the
recognition
of
our
entanglement
with
other
species.
B
I
think,
like
one
of
the
easiest
ways
to
think
through
that
for
a
lot
of
people
nowadays,
just
because
of
the
news
is
the
idea
of
human
entanglement
with
bees
right
so,
like
we
all
kind
of
have
an
idea
or
a
sense.
I
think,
if
you
kind
of
follow
the
news
that
bees
could
go
extinct
and
if
bees
go
extinct,
it's
not
just
that
we
won't
get
honey
anymore.
It's
that
bees
are
the
primary
pollinators
of
most
of
our
crops,
and
things
like
corn
require
pollination
in
order
to
produce
corn.
B
You
can't
just
plant
corn,
the
corn
has
to
pollinate
itself,
and
so
we're
kind
of
like
weirdly,
entangled
and
enmeshed
in
a
relationship
with
this
other
species,
in
the
same
way
that
we're
kind
of
weirdly
entangled
with
our
technology
like
in
this
cyborgian
theory
right
and
then
to
layer.
One
more
thing
in
there
to
make
sure
that
we
kind
of
wrap
this
other
set
of
theory
in
really
quickly
we're
also
in
a
cosmo
a
cosmo
political
relationship.
B
B
This
idea
of
common
ground
becomes
more
and
more
important,
and
it's
like
this.
I
have
this
weird
way
of
saying
it.
When
I
talk
about
it
that
I
that
I
think
can
be
useful,
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
like
human-centered
design
and
a
lot
of
ways
of
thinking
through
how
do
we
know
what
to
do
next
have
to
do
with
identifying
a
future
goal,
some
designing
towards
something
and
getting
everyone
to
agree
that
that's
the
thing
we
should
do.
B
That's
the
goal:
that's
we
should
all
align
around
that
and
if
we
don't
align
around
that,
we
can
expect
to
have
kind
of
lots
of
divergence.
You
know
chaotic,
behavior
and,
and
that
that
it
will
become
difficult
to
achieve
that
goal,
but
it
seems
reasonable
if
everybody's
not
aligned
to
the
same
goal.
You
might
not
achieve
that
goal.
One
of
the
ways
to
kind
of
think
about
the
way
that
common
ground
works
is
that
it
inverts
that
question,
because
what
it
says
is
what
what
is
the
current
condition?
B
B
Like
again,
I
I
hate
to
trivialize
things
too
much
but,
like
you
can
think
about
the
idea
of
dev
developers
and
operators
devops,
one
of
the
ways
to
think
about
it
would
be
that
we
need
to
be
aligned
to
the
same
goal
and
understand
exactly
what
the
system
should
do
in
the
future,
and
only
then
will
we
design
and
create
that
system.
The
other
way
to
think
about
it
would
be.
B
B
When
we
look
at
our
options,
can
we
pick
one
based
on
minimizing
the
amount
of
effort
required,
because
the
system
is
more
disposed
towards
certain
options
than
it
is
other
options
in
order
to
achieve
long-term
goals?
So
this
idea
of
designing
from
condition
consequence
thinking,
is
another
way
of
saying
these
type
of
things
or
or
the
ideas
of
common
ground.
I
think
have
a
lot
to
do
with
what
harway
wants
to
talk
about
here.
B
The
idea
here,
another
way,
I've
said
it
in
the
past-
is
that
huge
amounts
of
like
strategy,
strategic
design,
futuring.
You
know
all
these
like
strategic
design
activities
inside
of
organizations
and
firms
are
frankly
escapist.
They
they
they
want
to
imagine
the
future
without
starting
from
where
we
are
right.
Now
they
want
to
escape
the
current
problems
and
imagine
a
better
future,
as
opposed
to
simply
continuously
engaging
in
the
most
pressing
current
problems.
B
The
the
trouble
that
we're
currently
in
and
staying
here,
as
opposed
to
escaping
to
an
imaginary
future
in
which
the
technology
kind
of
solves
all
of
our
problems.
One
of
the
things
to
kind
of
say
there
is
that
for
harway
in
particular,
technology
never
solves
all
the
problems.
It
might
just
move
the
problems
from
one
place
to
another,
but
it
doesn't
solve
the
problems.
B
I'm
actually
not
convinced
that
that
haraway
would
use
the
term
anti-foundationalism,
but
we'll
talk
about
that
at
some
other
point.
So
when
we
think
about
this
dynamic
balance,
is
this
idea
that
that
entanglement
the
way
in
which
the
systems
interact
with
each
other,
the
way
in
which
they
play
off
of
each
other?
That
means
that
there's
not
a
compl
there's,
not
a
complete
degree
of
freedom
in
the
system.
B
B
Through
things
and
any
foundationalist
system
basically
says
that
the
agent
doesn't
actually
have
to
pre-exist
its
actions,
the
agents
can
be
created
in
its
actions
and
in
this
way,
there's
this
weird
thing
that
harway
does,
where
she
kind
of
talks
about
there's
not
it's
not
necessary
to
like
completely
understand
the
past
and
what
she
means.
I
think
by
that
is
that
there
is
no
need
to
trace
your
current
decision
back
through
a
causal
chain
to
to
the
beginning
of
time.
Yeah,
there's
no
need
for
that.
B
I
I
think
for
haraway.
She
thinks
that
in
fact,
it's
the
opposite.
Staying
with
the
trust
with
the
trouble
is,
it
is
an
acknowledgement
of
our
entanglement
with
the
present
our
entanglement
over
time,
our
inability
to
extract
ourselves
and
for
her,
I
think
this
idea
of
staying
with
the
president
or
saying
with
the
trouble
is
about
authentically
engaging
in
in
the
challenges
that
where
we
are
currently
facing,
as
opposed
to
trying
to
escape
them.
So
two
more
slides
and
then
I'll
stop
talking.
B
B
That's
called
process
theory
that
goes
back
to
whitehead
and
to
deleuze
and
others
who
who
want
to
think
through
kind
of
how,
how
things
become
ongoing,
entanglement,
how
things
kind
of
are
are
always
becoming
one
of
the
weird
ways
to
say
this
is
that
for
haraway
and
for
processed
theorists
in
general,
nothing
is
ever
complete,
but
there's
no
way
of
saying
what
something
is,
because
it's
it
it
never
is
it's
never
fully
there.
It's
always
somehow
entangled
in
the
future
and
the
past.
B
You
know
they
go
way
back
in
time,
frankly,
heraclitus
and
promenities.
You
know:
heraclitus
argued
that
you
never
step
in
the
same
river
twice,
which
is
a
whole
interesting
conversation.
Have
at
some
point
and
permanently
has
argued
that
time
doesn't
exist.
That
everything
time
isn't
is
is
an
illusion.
There
is
no
such
thing
as
time,
and
this
is
the
the
entire
universe
is
fixed.
So
the
the
the
idea
that
you
don't
step
in
the
same
river
twice
to
promenities
is
roughly
nonsense.
B
So
these
ideas,
these
arguments
have
happened
for
a
long
time,
and
I
will
tell
you
just
really
quickly.
In
general,
parmenides
has
has
been
taken
more
seriously
than
heraclitus
by
by
most
scientists
and
and
physicists,
especially
and
heraclitus,
is
kind
of
considered
to
be
a
little
bit
nonsense
at
times.
So
last
thing
kind
of
call
to
action,
part
of
this,
for
for
haraway
and
for
for
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
people
who
are
fellow
travelers
with
harway
she
wants
to
have.
B
She
has
this
idea
like
there's
a
fine
line
between
acknowledging
that
we're
in
trouble
that
that
there's
problems
we
we
have
problems
that
we
have
to
solve
as
humans
as
agents
in
the
world,
as
as
as
odd
can
as
as
entanglements
with
the
rest
of
living
species
on
the
planet,
but
that
we
can't
we.
We
can't
in
her
terminology
we
can't
succumb
to
an
abstract
futurism.
B
We
can
do
about
it
that
that
that
kind
of
the
the
environmental
crisis
it
it
is
it's
it's
all
it's
too
late.
Now
we
we
just
have
to
give
up
so
for
her
that
that
is
a
little
bit
of
this
interesting
positioning
of
we
can't
escape
into
the
future,
and
we
can't
excuse
ourselves
from
being
being
entangled
with
being
facing
up
to
our
problems
in
the
present.
By
escaping
to
the
past.
We
can't
just
say
the
past
determines
the
future.
B
A
A
For
me,
one
of
the
things
that
really-
and-
and
this
is
why
I
like
this-
this
quote
that
you
you
ended
on
is
one
of
the
things
she
talks
about
is
sort
of
the
apocalyptical
despair
that
many
of
us
may
feel
at
times
about
you
know
global
climate
change
or
you
know,
even
though
we're
working
towards
something
we
still.
You
know
we
may
publicly
present
like.
Oh
this
is,
you
know,
we're
gonna
make
the
world
better
place,
but
we
may
succumb
to
the
you
know
in
our
private
talk.
A
Our
comic
faith
and
techno
fixes
at
one
point
and
and
they
could
be
secular
or
religious
or
or
something
else,
and
that
somehow
technology
will
come
to
our
rescue,
and
so
that,
for
me,
was
really
thing
but
she's
not
also
saying
go.
You
know,
go
away
technology
she's,
acknowledging
that
there
are
lots
of
situated
technology
projects
that
are
very
important
that
are
going
to
help
us
solve
some
of
these
issues.
A
It
was,
as
as
joe
was
saying,
completely
mind-blowing
the
book,
and
so
I
encourage
everybody
who,
if
you
haven't,
read
it,
it's
a
great
read.
So
if,
if
anyone
any
further
commentary,
I
I
would
happily
on
mark
and
and
other
folks
to
un
unmute
you
and
let
you
rant
on,
but
that
was
for
me
it.
It
really
resonated
the
collaborations
and
the
being
with
and
oddkin
I
mean
once
you
accept
some
of
the
new
vocabulary
and
new
rewording
of
things.
A
B
Like
one
of
the
terms
that
I've
used
a
bunch
of
times
is
being
a
grumpy
optimist,
so
a
grumpy
optimist
is
someone
who's,
not
satisfied
with
the
way
things
are,
but
part
of
the
reason
they're
not
satisfied
is
they
know
that
they
can
get
better,
and
so
you
know
it's
it's
not
falling
for
either
side
of
it.
It's
it's!
It's
the
it's!
The
junction
of
these
two,
like
hopefulness
and
and
and
and
kind
of
this
dissatisfaction
that
that
actually
makes
progress
happen.
A
A
They
didn't
have
to
do
this,
that's
right,
but
it
was
done
and
it's
a
good
thing
and
so
being
able
to
let
go
of,
and
I
you
know
we
do
this
all
the
time
in
in
tech
we
get
pissed
off
at
our
competitors
or
a
foundation.
Does
something
or
you
know,
accept
something
but
being
able
to
be
really
present
with
the
people
that
we
are
in
our
entanglement
with
and
to
truly
collaborate
and
see
when
we
can
work
together.
It's
just
really.
B
You
know
again,
like
not
foreclosing
a
future
possibility
because
they
passed
transgression
right
that
that's
the
trick
is
to
say
like
listen.
If
you
want
to
say
that
amazon
will
not
do
this
because
they
don't
really
know
how
to
do
it
and
you
refuse
to
let
them
do
it
before.
If
you
foreclose
that
future,
you
assure
yourself
that
it
won't
happen.
Yeah
on
the
other.
A
B
A
A
Why
you're,
quoting
quoting
greek
folks
and
stuff
like
that
on
a
technology
podcast,
but
I
think
it's
these
deeper
ways
of
thinking
about
the
problems
that
we're
stuck
in
today
when
we
just
look
at
okay,
I
have
to
get
this
product
release
out
the
door
and
x
y
and
zed.
Customers
want
this
and
x
y
and
z.
Customers
want
that
and
how
do
we
reconcile
it?
A
But
how
do
we
bring
it
bring
a
true
collaboration
with
our
end
users,
our
partners,
our
colleagues
across
silos,
inside
things,
these
ways
of
thinking
about
how
we
are
related
to
each
other
really
help.
I
think
helped
me
a
lot
and
in
some
ways
get
your
ego
out
of
it
too.
I
think
there's
another
whole
level
of
another.
A
About
that,
it's
definitely
something
that
I
I
look
forward
to
more
and
I
think
the
isabel
stenger
books
are
are
next
on
my
list,
as
well
as
still
trying
to
get
through
the
the
sengae
books
and
there's
a
whole
slew
of
them.
So
I'm
not
going
to
go
back
and
read
greek
philosophers
this
month,
but
maybe
in
the
future.
Maybe
that
could
be
a
retirement
project,
but
I
was.
B
A
To
end
with
a
quote
that
I
really
liked
from
her
because
we're
almost
at
the
end
of
our
hour
or
we
are
quite
close
to
it,
but
she
says
this
wonderful
thing
that
she
says
nobody
lives
everywhere.
Every
everybody
lives
somewhere.
Nothing
is
connected
to
everything
and
everything
is
connected
to
something,
and
I
think
we
she
talks
about
strings
and
connections
and
collaborations,
and
I
just
think
that
so
is
dead.
A
On
with
how
we
have
to
think
about
moving
our
our
lives,
our
organizations
and
our
world
views
forward
is
that
I
know
biden
talked
about
unity
and
all
of
these
things
in
the
inauguration
speech,
but
it
really
is
when
we
have
such
great
divides
and
walls
between
us.
I
think
realizing
that
we're.
You
know
it's
not
just
six
degrees
of
separation.
We
really
are
truly
all
connected
and
interdependent,
and
it
really
was
a
great
read
and
a
great
way
to
frame
and
kick
off
2021.
A
So
I
am
again
indebted
with
with
you
and
now
I'm
gonna
have
to
go
back
and
listen
to
this
again
and
catch
all
of
the
book,
references
and
trying
to
annotate
this.
But
it's
it's
a
wonderful
way.
Next
week,
if
you're
around
kevin
beer
is
going
to
do
a
talk
which
he
is
tentatively
entitling
rage
against
the
silos
and
other
win
mills
and
on
why
many
pop
organizational
truisms
are
not
so
that'll
that'll
be
another
fun
conversation.
So
if
you
can
join
us,
we.
B
A
Oh
yeah,
it's
getting
the
word
edgewise
in
with
with
kevin,
is
always
the
hard
one
when
I'm
doing
this,
so
thank
you
again
for
coming
today,
everyone
who's
listening.
I
will
post
this
up
on
our
youtube
channel
shortly,
along
with
the
slides
and
some
semblance
of
annotation,
of
all
those
amazing
references
that
you
made,
I'm
going
to
be
hitting
you
up
in
chat
later
for
a
few
of
them,
but
yeah
great
talk
again.