Pretty sure you agree that if the product is free, the company is definitely getting value by monetizing something else of yours. It very much is true as written.

I would amend to: what Americans don't like to accept are what they see as preventable mistakes. The least American sentiment of all is "shit happens". Americans sometimes say that, but they don't mean it. What they really mean: "this shit shouldn't be allowed to happen". Hence the rules, and (in the extreme) the litigiousness.

Surely you can appreciate that if the next stop on the journey of technology can take over the process of improvement itself that would make it an awfully notable stop? Maybe not "destination", but maybe worth the "endless conversation"?

We’re either handicapping our brightest, or boosting our dumbest. One part is concerning, the other encouraging .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VM_(operating_system)

How does the author know that? Doesn't "not public" mean not visible, and therefore not countable?

So perhaps be less upset that Mom signed up; our DNA really isn't ours in the same way the documents on our hard drive. You were never going to be able to opt-out.

https://pjvogt.substack.com/p/why-cant-we-turn-all-the-empty...

There are fantastic, beautiful interactive experiences (for lack of a better word) that are obviously not documents (they can't be represented on paper, there is code running) but they're not really applications, either (they are fully offline, self-contained, state that's only evident on the page).

But they are, universally: dynamic.

Examples: - https://ciechanow.ski/mechanical-watch/ - http://worrydream.com/TenBrighterIdeas/ - even : https://neal.fun/space-elevator/

This is what I think the future of textbooks and presentations should be. But I think part of the problem is that not only do we not have tools geared toward creating them, we don't even have a name for these things. If we say "document", they flunk the pdf test. If we say "web application", they are lumped into the same lumbering category as office docs and enterprise software.

Maybe Nota is a step in the right direction. But it'd be an even better step if it didn't call itself "21st century documents", if for no other reason than to defend against the valid criticism you levied against it.

As a first approximation, just think of the size of the destination audience:

- if it's a few people, the language will sound direct and casual

- if it's many thousands, millions (likely to include government, investors, customers) then it will sound formal, corporate, "PR"

Because we're more often likely to be in the 2nd category, we're used to hearing senior leaders sound like their words have been carefully edited.

But we shouldn't be surprised that when we get a glimpse of their comms in smaller settings, it sounds "just like us".