►
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
We
did
a
sort
of
a
review
and
riff
on
a
number
of
books
that
that
diane
should
read
or
that
jabe
recommended
or
books
that
we
had
referenced
in
past
briefings
over
the
past
year
and
one
of
them
was
donna
haraway's
staying
with
the
trouble
making
kin
in
the
chahucian.
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.
A
So
welcome
back
jabe
and
the
stage
is
yours.
Give
us
your
interpretation
of
this
wonderful.
B
Sure,
well,
if
I,
if
we
can,
you
know
it's
hard
to
do
justice
to
something
like
quit.
Quite
this
big
in
a
brief
discussion-
and
I
also
you
know,
probably
want
to
say
before
we
start-
you
know
the
topics
that
donna
haraway
is
trying
to
address.
B
Certainly,
I
think,
are
applicable
to
things
like
organizational
transformation
and
stuff
like
that,
but
also
should
not
be
minimized
in
any
way
I
mean,
I
think,
they're
very
significant
topics,
so
I
I
I
will
we'll
be
talking
about
them
in
the
context
of
the
work
that
we
do
and
I
think
that
they
give
us
some
tools
and
some
ways
of
thinking
about
that
work,
but
we
shouldn't
we
shouldn't
minimize
them
or
trivialize
them
at
the
same
time,
can
you
guys
see
my
my
slide
there?
B
B
Okay,
so
harway
is
an
interesting
character,
an
interesting
thinker
in
in
a
lot
of
ways,
and
I
want
to
introduce
some
of
her
thinking
really
quickly
and
then
kind
of
contextualize.
B
What
she's
thinking
about
a
little
bit
so
harway
initially
was
quite
famous
for
having
written
the
cyborg
manifesto
and
in
it
she
is
trying
very
hard
to
to
kind
of
recontextualize
this
idea
of
being
a
cyborg
at
the
time.
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
How
how
would
a
feminist
look
at
at
a
cyborg?
What
would
it
be
mean
to
be
a
feminist,
cyborg
and
part
of
the
reason
she's
interested
in?
That
is
because
she
like,
like
many
other
philosophers,
have
kind
of
a
a
theory,
a
way
of
thinking
about
kind
of
humans.
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.
B
Kind
of
thinking
about
this
way
in
which
humans
become
entangled
with
technology
and
and
what
that
might
mean
for
the
way
we
kind
of
think
about
ourselves
and-
and
other
philosophers
have
talked
about
these
ideas,
but
one
of
my
favorite
is
is
named
stiegler.
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
The
responsibility
of
creating
humans
like
how
or
creating
all
the
animals
on
the
planet
and
and
prometheus
kind
of
like
goes
away
and
leaves
epimetheus
alone
for
a
while
and
epimetheus
makes
humans,
and
one
of
the
things
about
epimetheus
is
because
he's
an
a
he's
after
thought.
B
He
forgets
to
do
things
he
doesn't
plan
ahead,
doesn't
think
about
things
carefully,
doesn't
forethought
things
like
his
brother,
and
so
he
makes
humans
without
fur
without
without
a
way
of
protecting
themselves
against
the
cold,
and
so
prometheus
gets
upset
about
this,
and
so
he
goes
and
steals
fire
from
the
gods
and
and
originally
he
meant
to
steal
kind
of
the
ability
to
be
congenial
to
each
other
to
like
have
politics,
but
instead
he
steals
fire
because
he
can't
get
to
the
other
thing
and
he
delivers
fire
to
humans,
and
this
is
the
first
technology.
B
This
is
the
first
artificial
system.
That's
that
is
created
or
is
that
enables
humans
to
do
something
they
they
shouldn't
be
able
to
survive
in
the
cold.
Now
they
can
survive
in
the
cold,
but
then
they
become
committed
to
it.
Right.
B
Of
course,
all
of
this
stuff
kind
of
plays
out
in
different
ways,
but
prometheus
eventually
gives
birth
to
pandora,
and
we
get
pandora's
box
and
all
sorts
of
interesting
ways
of
thinking
about
technology
and
the
way
that
technology
allows
humans
to
do
things,
but
also
commits
them
to
do
other
things
and
fire
becomes
the
kind
of
gift
and
the
curse
similar
to
other
things
inside
of
inside
of
pandora's
box
as
well.
B
So
when
we
think
about
these
ideas
of
technology
and
the
interactions
with
humans,
we
get
different
ways
of
thinking
about
our
relationship
to
technology
and
what
what
technology
is
like
and
there's
three
big
ones
that
I
like
to
talk
about.
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
This
is
the
idea
that,
like
you,
are
a
cosmo,
you
have
the
cosmopolitan
localism
and
cosmopolitan
localism
means
that
you
are
a
athenian
but
you're,
also
a
greek,
so
there's
the
the
the
locality
that
you
are
part
of
you
govern
athens
as
as
as
a
member
of
the
polis
of
athens,
but
you
were
also
a
member
of
the
cosmos
which
is
all
of
the
greek
world,
and
in
this
way
you
get
this
idea
that
there's
multiple
centers
of
governance
there's
like
multiple
places
that
are
being
governed
differently,
that
are
evolving
differently.
B
B
Some
places
are
near
the
sea,
some
places
are
near
the
fields
and
therefore
the
politics
and
the
relationships
that
people
have
kind
of
emerge
from
those
things
so
isabel
stengers
wrote
a
book
with
illegitimacy
and
priyajin
is,
is
one
of
the
forefathers
or
one
of
the
the
fathers
of
something
called
chaos
theory
and
cast
theory.
B
It
could
is
roughly
deterministic
complexity,
theory
and
what
he
kind
of
is
talking
about
with
stengers
in
this
book
called
the
era
of
time
is,
is
the
idea
of
complexity
and
multiple
interactions
and
indeterminacy
and
and
the
way
things
become
entangled
with
each
other
in
order
to
support
each
other,
but
also
that
they
stabilize
their
interactions
with
each
other,
but
that
they
can't
be
separated
when
they're
separated
they
they,
when
the
when
the
parts
are
separated,
the
complexity
goes
away,
and
so
do
the
emergent
properties
of
the
system,
so
harway
is
interested
in
this
kind
of
theory
of
complexity
is
specifically
this
kind
of
sense,
in
which
complexity,
calm,
plexus,
with
a
plecture
and
plectra
means
weeding
or
entangling.
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
How
heroin
theory
this
level
of
complexity
now
is
that
they're
entangled
with
each
other
so
that
the
cyborg's
relationship
with
technology
is
not
temporary
it
it's
embedded
it's
in
it's
in
their
body
and
it
extends
their
existence
in
in
a
specific
kind
of
way,
and
this
stuff
leads
into
ideas
by
people
like
like
andy
clark
who,
who
and
or
william
james,
who
would
kind
of
describe
what
we
would
call
4e
a
cognition
or
ecological
cognition,
where
the
idea
from
like
from
james
would
be.
B
If
you,
if
you're
a
blind
man
and
you
have
a
a
walking
stick,
you
you
don't
use
the
stick
as
in
like
a
tool.
It
though
the
stick
extends
your
hand
to
the
ground
so
that,
as
you're
experiencing
the
world,
the
the
stick
is
not
other
than
you.
B
It
is
part
of
your
body
now
it's
part
of
your
way
of
sensing
and
being
in
the
world,
and
there's
really
interesting,
actually
scientific
tests
around
this
that
one
of
my
favorite
ones
being
that
they
they
they
will
take
someone
and
have
them
put
both
hands
on
a
table
and
they'll.
B
Take
a
hammer
and
they'll
hit
the
table
with
the
hammer,
not
that
not
the
person's
hands
hit
the
table
with
the
hammer,
so
the
person
can
feel
the
vibrations
of
the
table
and
then
they'll
say:
okay,
can
you
take
your
left
hand
down
and
take
the
left
hand
down
and
then
they'll
put
a
fake
left
hand
there?
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
Actually,
it's
a
subtly
different
quote
than
you
had
so
I
I
maybe
I'll
point
out
to
it
a
little
bit
more
one
of
the
things
that
we
that
often
we
get
when
we
kind
of
think
through
through
time
or
through
time,
ideas
is
that
we
e.
We
need
to
do
two
things.
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
You
have
to
choose
whether
you're
going
one
way
or
another,
and
so
the
present,
the
present
that
she
is
talking
about,
I
think
here
is,
is
a
sense
in
which
what
questions
do
we
cur?
Are
we
currently
trying
to
answer
what
what's
the
problem
that
we're
trying
to
solve
right
now?
B
What
is
the
trouble
that
we're
in
and
the
where
the
trouble
is
in
interaction
not
just
of
the
past,
but
in
interaction
of
the
past
with
the
future,
and
you
know
to
bring
in
a
little
bit
of
of
other
kind
of
theorists?
It's
it's.
B
It's
the
agency
of
being
able
to
change
the
the
future,
be
able
to
kind
of
nudge
the
future
in
one
direction
or
another.
That's
the
trouble
that
humans
end
up
being
in
humans
end
up
having
to
change
the
natural
progression
of
things.
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
It
would
be
a
deterministic
system
humans,
however,
because
they
are
involved
kind
of
embed
their
decisions
and
desires
and
wants
and
concerns
about
the
future.
B
They
they
embed
them
in
material
systems
in
their
technologies,
and
they
become
entangled
with
those
materials
and
technologies
moving
into
the
future,
so
that
their
future
is
not
simply
a
set
of
kind
of
billiard
ball
deterministic
systems,
but
instead
they're
kind
of
entangled
in
in
human
desire,
and
that
that
the
materialization
of
that
desire,
and
therefore
they're
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
entangle
themselves
or
disentangle
themselves
from
those
things.
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
With
these
other
agents,
where,
like
I'm
an
athenian
and
someone
else,
is
from
somewhere
else
in
greece,
we
don't
have
to
end
up
having
the
same
local
needs.
Desires
wants
goals.
In
order
to
pursue
these
things,
we
don't
need
a
shared
concept
of
the
future.
B
What
we
need
is
a
shared
understanding
of
the
current
problems,
the
current
ground,
the
way
that
things
are
so
that
so
that
what
for
harway,
when
we
talk
about
staying
with
the
trouble
part
of
what
we're
talking
about
is
staying
not
not
trying
to
negotiate
the
future,
not
trying
to
like
figure
out
what
we
all
want
together
and
somehow
like
collapsing,
the
future
into
one
desired,
shared
objective
goal,
but
instead
trying
to
figure
out
what
we
all
need
in
order
to
be
able
to
pursue
our
own
goals
as
as
a
as
as
members
of
a
cosmopolitan
system
right,
and
so
in
that
way,
we
get
this
idea.
B
I
think
that
what
what
what
for
harway,
what
she
becomes
concerned
with
is
the
establishment
of
common
ground
versus
common
goals,
and
I
think
you
know
in
in
resilience
engineering
theory
in
in
a
lot
of
complexity,
theory
that
you're
that
has
to
do
with
kind
of
human
systems
and
human
interactions
with
technology.
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
What
is
the
ground
from
which
we
designed
from
what?
What
are
we
designing
from
in
order
to
achieve
a
lot
of
potentially
different
concerns
right,
like
we,
we
all
might
have
different
ideas
about
what
we
want
the
system
to
be
capable
of,
so
you
could
think
about.
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
The
question
then
becomes
for
common
ground
what
would
be
required
by
both
parts
of
the
system
to
achieve
their
goals,
and
that
becomes
the
ground
so
we're
designing
from
as
opposed
to
designing
towards,
and
the
result
of
this
is
that
again,
we
start
talking
about
things
like
the
disposition
of
the
system,
the
the
likelihood
that
the
system
will
unfold
in
certain
ways
the
likelihood
that
the
system
can
or
can't
do
things
and
if
we
think
about
it
in
transitionary
terms,
all
of
these
ideas
about
designing
from
then
start
saying
things
like
if
we
want
to
do
something
in
particular,
how
might
we
do
it
and
is
the
syst
and
what
are
the
different
options
for
doing
it,
and
what
given
the
disposition
of
the
system,
given
the
likelihood
that
the
system
will
do
one
thing
versus
the
other?
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
There's
no
like
magical
technical
fix
in
the
future
in
in
haraway's,
mind,
and
so
one
of
the
other
things
to
really
quickly
grasp
onto
here
when
we
think
about
this
stuff
and
try
to
think
through
it
with
with
faraway's
thought,
is
the
difference
between
like
this
idea
of
dynamic
balance
and
and
what's
called
anti-foundationalism.
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
Great,
so
so,
there's
not
a
complete
degree
of
freedom
in
in
the
systems.
B
The
the
interactions
between
the
system
create
a
a
movement
of
the
system
where
the
system
doesn't
stay
still
or
or
doesn't
stay
completely
stable,
but
it
constantly
rebalances
itself
so
that
it
so
that
it's
r
the
system
is
reproduced
in
in,
in
a
way
that
one
can
recognize
that
the
system
that
we
saw
yesterday
is
the
same
system
today,
even
though
maybe
all
the
parts
or
some
significant
amount
of
parts
are
different
or
you
know,
different
different
pieces
are
involved
still
same
system
just
in
a
different
in
a
different
form,
and
this
idea
of
dynamic
imbalance
becomes
really
important
in
relationship
to
the
second
piece,
which
is
what's
called
any
foundationalism.
B
So
foundationalism
is
just
this
idea
that
the
agency,
this
idea,
that
we
keep
on
pointing
at
that
there
is
an
agent
and
the
agent
does
something
requires
the
pre-existence
of
the
agent,
like
the
there
has
to
be
a
foundation
to
the
thing,
and
these
ideas
have
to
do
with
with
the
way
in
which
epis
epistemological
systems
kind
of
think
think
them
way
think
their
way.
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
Instead,
there
is
an
emergent,
complex
interaction
of
things
that
open
a
significant
amount
of
possibilities
and
those
possibilities
are
offered
through
this
set
through
this
interaction
of
a
complex
system
that
creates
a
dynamic
balance
that
opens
a
phase
space
and
then
your
decisions
contribute
to
the
future
complexity
of
the
system,
but
they
only
kind
of
contribute
to
the
future
complexity
of
the
system.
B
In
that
kind
of,
like
you
know,
butterfly
wing
kind
of
way,
it
would
be
impossible
to
trace
your
decision,
particularly
in
in
the
in
the
in
the
long
term
future.
B
It's
only
that
it
nudged
the
system
slightly
yeah,
so
there's
no
foundation,
there's
no
there's
no,
there's
no
sense
of
the
causality
that
you
would
think
of
inside
in
like
a
newtonian
kind
of
way,
so
that
so
that
when
we
think
about
kind
of
cyborgs
and
we
think
about
cosmopolitan
systems
involving
multiple
species
and
multiple
technologies
and
multiple
centers
of
power,
one
of
the
things
we
end
up
having
to
kind
of
think
through
it
is
that
there
there
is
no
determinism
to
it,
there's
only
kind
of
an
unfolding
of
it
and
that
we
need.
B
I
think
it's
interesting
to
think
through
and
there's
all
sorts
of
things
I
could
kind
of
rant
about
here
about
kind
of
compressive
time
and
and
our
misunderstanding
of
what
it
means
to
be
present
and
there's
all
sorts
of
really
interesting
things
to
be
said
about,
like
you
know,
donna
harway
likes
to
say
things
like
it's
important
to
be
fully
present,
but
I
don't
actually
think
that
she
means
that,
in
kind
of
like
a
a
buddhist
sense
of
being
fully
present,
I
think
I
think
the
buddhist
sense
of
detached
detachment
of
being
fully
fully
present
but
but
yearning
for
a
detachment
or
a
lack
of
you,
know,
commitment
as
a
form
of
enlightenment.
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
It's
parts
of
it
are
always
missing,
and
that
has
to
do
with
like
commitments
and
and
and
things
that
we've
done
and
committed
ourselves
to
in
order
to
create
the
stabilities
and
the
ideas
we
have
about
identity
and
who
we
are
and
and
what
we
want
out
of
the
world.
B
All
of
those
things
require
imagining
a
future
and
committing
and
making
things
at
least
you
know
trying
to
recreate
or
reproduce
things
in
a
way
that
kind
of
pulls
us
into
the
future,
because
what
we,
what
we
want
to
be,
what
we
believe
we
are
is
is
a
commitment
to
continue
to
be
a
way
that
the
way
we
imagine
ourselves-
and
that
is
a
future
state-
it's
not
a
present
state,
so
we're
never
fully
there
we're
never
fully
realized
we're
always
kind
of
smeared
across
time
in
a
way,
and
that
that
idea
is,
you
know,
an
idea
about
like
expanding
what
we
have
a
sense
of
as
being
present
or
or
you
know,
being
becoming
yeah,
whereas
objective
systems
have
more
to
do
with
kind
of
like
inner
independence
instead
of
interdependence,
instead
of
entanglement
it's
about
the
way
in
which
objects
are
separate
from
each
other
and
can
be
evaluated
as
being
unique,
individual
things
in
the
world
and
these
two
theories.
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't
embrace
this
escapism
of
imagining
that,
if
we
just
can
imagine
the
right
future
and
align
everybody
against
that
future
that
we
will
escape
because
we'll
know
where
to
go
next,
and
so
we
can't
do
this
escapism,
but
we
also,
on
the
other
hand,
we
can't
go
to
the
past
and
say
all
of
the
decisions
that
we've
made
mean
that
this
is
a
is
a
fit
complete,
that
that
that
it
is
hopeless
that
there's
nothing.
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
B
These
things
in
is
is
is
kind
of
environmental
global
like
very
large
timescapes,
but
I
think
these
same
ideas
about
like
about
kind
of
sustainability,
engagement,
understanding
like
map
some
of
these
ideas
onto
things
like
technical
debt,
organizational
debt,
the
way
in
which
we
feel
like
the
technol
technological
decisions
that
we've
made
in
the
past
are
over
determining
the
decisions
we
can
make
about
our
futures,
so
that
we
feel
like
the
system
is
in
more
control
than
we
are
and
and
that
we
give
up
that
we
resign
ourselves
to
those
things
or
the
way
in
which
kind
of
for
for
haraway
in
in
in
this
cosmo
political
conception
that
somehow
you
have
to
create
a
completely
aligned
ideal
future
state
in
order
to
make
good
things
happen
in
an
organization,
as
opposed
to
simply
having
some
conception
of
the
common
ground
that
we
need
to
recreate,
because
the
common
ground
already
exists,
the
common
ground.
B
B
So
if
we
want
to
change
our
future,
focusing
on
changing
the
common
ground
and
our
common
understanding
of
the
technologies
and
and
ideas
and
concepts
that
we
have
about
who
we
are
and
what
we're
able
to
do
as
opposed
to
reducing
autonomy
of
teams,
we
can
recognize
their
interdependence
and
recognize
their
their
multiple
concerns
for
what
they
want,
as
not
being
the
same
and
still
create
common
ground
and
stay
with
the
the
trouble
that
we
have
with
reproducing
that
common
ground
as
a
way
of
moving
forward
through
transformation.
A
And-
and
it
was
a
beautiful
rant
and-
and
I
I
really
love
it,
and
actually,
if
you
go
back
to
the
the
last
slide
just
for
a
second,
because
I
think
that
that
quote
and
a
and
I
and
I
really
what
I
appreciated,
I
think
the
most
about
this
book
is
is,
as
you
teased
out
a
little
bit
about
staying
in
what
is
it
means
to
be
present
and
the
entanglements
we
have
and
having
just
come
out
of
our
2021
three-day
planning
meetings
and
listening
to
people
across
the
organization
having
you
know
their
past
baggage
and
technical
debt
and
trying
to
come
up
with
a
common
ground
for
all
of
us
to
move
forward
with
it's.
A
It's
really,
you
know
a
good
way.
It
was
an
enlightening
way
for
me
to
start
thinking
about
our
how
our
how
to
move
our
organizational
forward
and
to
find
that
common
ground
and
where
we
are
all
entangled
with,
and
for
for.
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
Oh,
it's
never
going
to
happen
right,
so
she
really
creates
a
space,
I
think,
for
hope
and
and
and
moving
forward,
even
in
times
where
there
are
a
lot
of
things
on
our
plate
to
try
and
work
out
and
unentangle
or
create
new
new
conceptual
ways
of
being
in
there
and-
and
I
I
also
what
I
one
of
the
things
that
I
really
appreciated
about
her
was
she,
I
think
she
puts
it.
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
And
but
it's
also
from
for
me
the
the
important
thing
was
the
being
with,
and
the
collaborations
that
we
are,
we
have
to
make
in
all
of
our
entanglements
and
in
across
our
organizations
whether
we're
in
you
know
a
technology
corporation
like
red
hat
or
something,
and
we
have
multiple
silos
and
lots
of
products
and
end
users
and
partners
and
trying
to
bring
all
of
those
folks
together
and
recognizing
them
for
the
entanglements
that
they
are.
A
I
just
thought
that
was
just
a
lovely
way
to
think
about
the
work
that
we
do
on
a
daily
basis,
as
well
as
some
of
the
things
that
we
need
to
do
in
the
bigger
world
and
how
even
the
technology
tech
that
we
are
in
is
entangled
with
the
rest
of
the
greater
world
and
and
our
mission
at
red,
hat
and
other
places
and
how
that
is
entangled
with
everything.
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
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.
B
I
think
it
allows
you
to
kind
of
stay
stay
with
the
problems
that
are
kind
of
in
front
of
you
in
front
of
your
organization
in
front
of
the
world.
A
An
interesting
example
of
it
for
me
was
yesterday,
and
I
don't
know
you
know-
I
know
you're
on
twitter
and
everything,
but
somewhat
the
the
problem
with
because
I
come
from
an
open
source
community
background.
So
I'm
always
watching
for
these.
A
These
things
that
happen
out
there
and
elastic
changed
the
licensing
on
their
their
projects
and
elastic,
and
yesterday
aws
announced
that
they
were
going
to
make
to
create
a
fork
of
it
and
create
a
truly
open
source
project
of
it,
and
you
know
that
that
is
a
good
thing
right,
but
because
of
all
the
baggage,
aws
comes
with
for
around
open
source
and
contributing
there's
a
trust
issue
right
and
the
wonderful
thing
I
got
to
do
on
some
twitter
stream
was
quote
back
something
from
haraway
just
about
being
in
in
the
prep
being
being
able
to
be
in
the
present,
and
think
of
this
is
a
good
thing,
they're
doing
right.
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
Yeah,
so
it
it's
a
so
I
thought
it
was.
It
was
a
really
good
way
to
be
able
to,
and
I
think
that's
I
people
may
question
why
we're
talking
about
heroin
and
why
we're
talking
about
these,
these
more
philosophical.
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.
A
A
And
welcome
to
2021
happy.