And how is having meetings a negative thing for remote work? Remote shouldn't mean "no interaction". Remote should adapt for collaboration.

I think anyone can ruin teams that would previously jell well together. A team that can't be destroyed is one that is mature and independent enough to detect the issue and make sure the problem is taken care of, even if it involves moving the individual out. Usually, that's a responsibility that we attribute to Managers, but theoretically self-organizing teams could do that (never saw it in practice tho).

That being said, I agree with you that it's not healthy to think of people that way. "Focus on the issue and not on the person"; we want to work on the issues on the long run instead of labelling people as "assholes". That requires: - A Manager that can detect the issue and/or that does not ignore the issue. Needs to be comfortable with difficult conversations and doesn't stall - A team that provides meaningful feedback constantly and in time, not only at performance reviews. - A chance for the person in question to develop and work on the feedback (and openness and willingness from the person in question)

And if none of the above work, moving the person out does not necessarily mean firing them. It could be a move to another team with more similar values, other projects, etc... People sometimes are just in the wrong place and are incompatible with the way the team works. Though sometimes they really are incompatible with the company and firing is required but that is not the only answer.

Only this year did I decide to actually read the Scrum Guide. I was never in a team that practiced it like that. All of them had stuff changed and reading the guide I was confused because the changes seemed for the worse. I feel like this is mostly the experience for people when they describe Scrum.

So in that sense a coach would not set the agenda at all, nor be directive of what you need to do to get there, quite the opposite in fact. They keep asking questions and pushing you to figure out what you need to do to get there, which means that a coach can theoritically help you even if not in the same field as you.

> Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will surely become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit - all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided. It’s the sound of failure: so much modern art is the sound of things going out of control, of a medium pushing to its limits and breaking apart. The distorted guitar sound is the sound of something too loud for the medium supposed to carry it. The blues singer with the cracked voice is the sound of an emotional cry too powerful for the throat that releases it. The excitement of grainy film, of bleached-out black and white, is the excitement of witnessing events too momentous for the medium assigned to record them.

I'm really astonished with this comparison.

You can find some studies on what is the current thinking regarding dreams, and their purpose and meaning.

It seems that there are some "cognitive prerequisites for dreaming", which are mostly developed around the age of 5-7, which might explain your dreams being so crazy and full of colors, as in those ages you are still developing "the ability to produce mental imagery" and "narrative skills".

https://dreams.ucsc.edu/Library/domhoff_2020b.pdf - Chapter "Dreaming Is a Gradual Cognitive Achievement"