Hardly surprising to see another billionaire acting in ways that appear opportunistic and self-serving.
Who knows what Benioff actually thinks - he supported Democratic presidential candidates as recently as Hillary Clinton's last run. Now we see effusive praise for Trump and his policies. Rather than a rightward shift in his political and moral convictions, I imagine this is a naked appeal to the president's legendary susceptibility to flattery ("I fully support the president. He's doing a great job.") I'm not even sure if Benioff and his peers have such convictions.
> I can see it being a good thing if done carefully.
My experience with raising three kids is there’s a limit to the amount of messaging that gets through with any fidelity. So, the only financial teaching I did with them, was the stocks, bonds, diversification, risk and prudence schtick. I could see the attempted teachable lesson about gambling losses going sideways and crowding-out the rest.
I was pretty much the same way with my kids, with one more detail: Teaching a reasonable level of skepticism about advertising, marketing, and peer pressure in general.
> Why are we asking for profits companies to fight our fights?
Maybe we're not asking them to fight our fights, but to stop tipping the scales one way or the other. There's a difference between asking them to aid progressive or regressive causes vs. actually staying neutral. If it's too big a moral burden on Apple or Google, then allow us to run whatever we want on our devices.
There is a science on talent development, famously popularized in part by Malcolm Gladwell in his over-simplification of the "10,000 hour rule," which he presented as "do something for 10K hours and you'll have mastered it." In fact K. Anders Ericsson maintained that the difference between the highest achieving musicians and the next tiers of achievement were associated with higher volume of _deliberate practice_. The differences were significant around 10,000 hrs. A later meta-analysis looked at the literature and found that practice accounted for far less of the measurable factors that explained the difference in outcomes - maybe just 12% or so.
I think the take-away from these discrepant studies of talent development is that it's a complex phenomenon likely involving genetic predisposition, other factors that influence neural "wiring", availability of opportunities to learn and develop (socioeconomic factors), and practice quality and volume.
If alignment is involved, it's alignment of these factors.
The caveat behind all of this is that the research is heavily focused on the factors that propel one into the high reaches of achievement. For example, Ericsson studied students in acclaimed conservatories. How these factors play out in how talent develops in "good-enough" practitioners is perhaps a different question.
I’ve been lucky enough to meet a number of high performers across some disparate domains. In nearly all cases genetic / nature explanations count for zilch. Alignment, in the sense that TFA talks about, is everything.
I think that across the board a lot of people mistake passion for talent. Which’s what OP is discussing. The people who do well are those whose passion drives them to do better, every waking moment of every day, because that is where they find their enjoyment.
That's just clearly not true. Look at the high end of any sport and you see obvious genetic advantages. Basketball is particularly obvious, because height is so important. Nate Robinson could jump just as high at LeBron James, but at 1.75m (5'9") he was never going to be as successful at basketball as the 2.06m (6'9") LeBron. There are plenty of basketball players who would have never got on the court if they weren't as tall as they are. No amount of passion is going to make you taller.
I'm thinking that the domain of (competitive) sports is an outlier as such as it's probably the one domain where physical properties like muscle structure, height etc. have the biggest impact on "performance".
But the discussion in the article is not about performing to a high level in order to accomplish a certain outcome (win the match), it's more about exploring one self and honing a certain talent to reach deeper levels of self-expression and self-actualization: OP has a unique way of playing the piano, and they honed it by pouring love and time into it. They would probably not perform super well in some kind of piano contest where you need to play by ear, for example. And that's not the point I got.
Everyone can principally pour love and time into any domain or activity. A 1.50m tall person can explore and hone their basketball talent in order to form a deeper understanding of that part of themselves and share it with the world.
The dictionary def of talent is an innate ability; application and practice are not mentioned.
Lady Catherine hilariously claimed "There are few people in England, I suppose, who have more true enjoyment of music than myself, or a better natural taste. If I had ever learnt, I should have been a great proficient."
Dictionary definitions often reflect false folk psychology, but we are still stuck with these words as a common vocabulary.
What I mean is that your talent at Thing was not that you are innately skilled at it, but that you really enjoy doing and getting better at Thing. That is something that it is very hard to cultivate from scratch, and either you have it or you don’t.
I talk to them? Ask them “how’d you get so good at Thing?” and they often tell you just how hard it is to do Thing, but they love it and feel so lucky that they can get paid to do Thing, then tell you all the challenges they ran into, etc.
This incorrectly assumes that people are self-aware about how much their genetics / environment contributed to their success (they are not) but also misses the fact that lots of people work very hard at things without success.
When I think of my singular biggest external achievement, I worked my ass off for it. But no amount of hard work by someone who didn't have some of the advantages I have would have gotten them anywhere close to it. The second part of that comes up approximately never when people ask me about it, I always emphasise the tremendous amount of gut-busting work it took, because that's the part I'm proud of. All that said, I've worked just as hard (maybe harder?) on some things that came to nothing.
There's still a missing part. As a kid I didn't have to learn how to read. I saw the words on children books while my mother was reading when I was 5 and my brain did the rest. It's thus unrelated to time spend trying a particular task.
The "funny" part is that since high school, my brain kinda lost the ability to parse / infer things I don't know most of the time, but not always, and the few time I was able to understand new topics was when I altered my own thinking patterns to not search for answers right away but let myself swim in stimuli/data smoother and let idea come up slowly.
The AoA failure logic does not allow for manual reversion of the master/monitoring FCC. It still requires cross-checking sides in the event of an AOA DISAGREE annunciation. But since the update, MCAS is disabled in this scenario. As far as the FMC, the relationship between AoA vanes, flight control computers and CMD A/B is not configurable. But the non-failed autopilot channel can be selected.
…which of course is a good reminder not to make assumptions about domains in which one has limited or no knowledge. I too have spent my entire life in classical music - I’m a collaborative pianist. But I have to guard against making judgements about popular genres which I don’t regularly listen to.
You know, for most humans, empathy is a thing; all the more so when facing known or suspected health situations. Good on those who have transcended that need. I guess.
Musk's project to create as many offspring as possible (Wikipedia has the count as "at least 14.") is suggestive.