Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

I don't get nay-sayers who look at a beautiful expression of passion and wonder and think "that's not what I want done, therefore they must be bad." I see this with Musk, most billionaire philanthropy, and now here. Seems like a petty tyrant.

Why not just be happy that people are following their passions? The mentality that we must do a certain type of work because that's what's good for X is so dehumanizing. It turns people into instruments. I don't get it.

Mike's ideas were based on aesthetics. So it's like judging a piece of art for being wrong. I saw definitely creative yet arbitrary solutionism instead of some thoughful examination of the cause and effects of (wicked) humanity's problems. Are we optimising for creativity?

Twitter is not a good medium for this discussion. much of that tweet was a rhetorical argument for a supposed lack of imagination and I think there is no need to take apart the examples one by one.

so much this. i'm running a self-org exp with my team at work. it's the most productive team i've ever been around in 30 years of software dev. the directive is "it's your responsibility to figure out what the best use of your time is for the purpose of the company," and 1/

the team is operating faster than the designers can design AND getting some "extra" (as deemed by PMs) work done. when PMs stepped in to suggest they could direct that passion to better pursuits, i simply said "do you want to risk destroying this engine?" they decided "no" 2/2

Why does this assume that passion is fungible? Seems to me she's saying that you should prioritize work based on needs instead of passions, not that you can choose what you're passionate about

Thus the "arbitrariness of creative capacity" as an alternative. I do not think creative capacity can be decoupled from passion, but she might

Such a good way to put it. Most people see this as the same thing.