Here I am the fool looking to fail frequently. I want to either hit a homerun or walk or even strike out. This means I fail far more often than I succeed. But the important point is that what I lose when I fail is trivial, epsilon compared to what I make when I succeed.

I believe the traditional perception, which posits that success is merely an accumulation of advantages while failure is an accumulation of disadvantages, is overly simplistic. It's the disadvantages that offer a more fertile ground for learning, albeit for a smaller cohort. The depth of learning and engagement derived from tackling difficulties is substantially richer compared to that gleaned from facing advantages.

We've ended up with organizations that are less capable than the people inside them- which is a little ironic when you think about it. Research shows that 89% of people are happy with the actual tasks of their work yet are frustrated with the work-environment- they are bothered by how they're managed not what they do.

The notion that the Google or Chrome app could become redundant on mobile devices isn't far-fetched. In a future where direct URL visits are less common, the convenience of an all-encompassing app could significantly alter how we interact with our devices.

We must stand up and say that a business model based on secretly tracking us in order to find, and exploit, weaknesses in our attention is not acceptable. It's immoral.