So yes, I think there's a way to become a chess master. You just need to go one level deeper and accept that there might be multiple topics that each will need half a decade to learn good enough to be useful.

PS: And yes, good catch. Cao cao actually wasn't emperor officially. His son became emperor. Totally forgot that point for some reason.

Sometimes for me the KPI is digging deeper than anybody else can and solve a real root cause issue. Sometimes it means simply not being in zombie mode in the evening (i.e. yes, actually working less). Sometimes it means finding something that may be less efficient but everybody can agree and do together.

In each of these cases having the right kind of tea and tea cup at hand is much more important than training the best scheduling techniques. ;-)

Also the story becomes more deep when you realize that there are story elements where they act like the character would coincidentally slip into a situation but actually was probably stupid on purpose to create a much better outcome for himself. My favorite example being when Caocao fails to kill Dong Zhuo who is laying in front of him sleeping. If you are a mass murderer like either of these two there is almost no chance to fail to assassinate someone laying in front of you sleeping. And yet Caocao did.

What happened due to this failure? The rebels took him in and started to listen to his ideas, when before they ignored him due to his low background. Also one of his biggest competitors, Wang Yun, who coincidentally is the owner of the knife used in the attempted murder.

What would have happened if he had successfully killed Dong Zhuo? Lu Bu probably would have killed him on the spot. Maybe he would go in history as a small hero but he would have never become emperor.

Every good(!) one knows that we got it wrong. Just a little less wrong than in the previous model. You cannot get it right. It wouldn't be a model but reality as a whole if you got it right. So the only questions are how you can get it less wrong than the last model, and which of the available models is most useful for the problem you are currently tackling. So yes, sometimes you even want to use a more-wrong model because it fits your problem better.

edit: thought about bringing in an example, but honestly it would need too much googling to be precise enough.

1. people are good -> trying to do something good

2. doing good -> realizing many people are not good

3. stop doing good thing, start being frustrated

4. realizing one doesn't need to let people pull oneself down -> start doing good again

5. helping others to do good things and surviving the first shock of being visible

6. $$$

That's at least how I think a federated system should work. Not sure if reality matches that.

Therefore I would assume that we can't fully apply the traditional media experience to the current streaming wars.

And the real question I want to ask: Do you feel that especially the middlest of managers have to fear AI the most, because AI could theoretically replace exactly that middle layer and do it even better than a human could?

Start building a better future and you can be part of defining what it will look like. Doesn't even have to be a competitor. Employees inside the big tech companies also have more push towards their personal goals than people outside.

The first time I heard the word millenial was 2017.

This world is weird. But in a world were people can choose their gender freely I think I can have the choice to use that word as I see fit. Feel free to do the same. ;)