Quotes About Impact

If you service low-impact activities, therefore, you're taking away time you could be spending on higher-impact activities.

Fixed-schedule productivity, in other words, is a meta-habit that's simple to adopt but broad in its impact.

We added new technologies to the periphery of our experience for minor reasons, then woke one morning to discover that they had colonized the core of our daily life.

These changes crept up on us and happened fast, before we had a chance to step back and ask what we really wanted out of the rapid advances of the past decade. We added new technologies to the periphery of our experience for minor reasons, then woke one morning to discover that they had colonized the core of our daily life.

They are programming people," Harris says. "There's always this narrative that technology's neutral. And it's up to us to choose how we use it. This is just not true—" "Technology is not neutral?" Cooper interrupts. "It's not neutral. They want you to use it in particular ways and for long periods of time. Because that's how they make their money.

Assuming that you could probably list somewhere between ten and fifteen distinct and potentially beneficial activities for each of your life goals, this law says that it's the top two or three such activities—the number that this strategy asks you to focus on—that make most of the difference in whether or not you succeed with the goal.

If you service low-impact activities, therefore, you're taking away time you could be spending on higher-impact activities. It's a zero-sum game.

In a business setting, without clear feedback on the impact of various behaviors to the bottom line, we will tend toward behaviors that are easiest in the moment.

On reflection, this makes sense. If you have many years' experience, then you've had time to get better at what you do and develop a feeling of efficacy. It also gives you time to develop strong relationships with your coworkers and to see many examples of your work benefiting others.

Much in the same way that the "innovation" of highly processed foods in the mid-twentieth century led to a global health crisis, the unintended side effects of digital communication tools—a sort of social fast food—are proving to be similarly worrisome.

No one ever changed the world, created a new industry, or amassed a fortune due to their fast email response time.

We should not, therefore, expect the bottom-line impact of depth-destroying behaviors to be easily detected.

What's the impact of our current e-mail habits on the bottom line?

These e-mails take the sender only a handful of seconds to write but can command many minutes (if not hours, in some cases) of time and attention from their recipients to work toward a coherent response. A little more care in crafting the message by the sender could reduce the overall time spent by all parties by a significant fraction

As Kraybill elaborates, they confront the following questions: "Is this going to be helpful or is it going to be detrimental? Is it going to bolster our life together, as a community, or is it going to somehow tear it down?

Let's pull together the threads spun so far: Current economic thinking, as I've surveyed, argues that the unprecedented growth and impact of technology are creating a massive restructuring of our economy. In this new economy, three groups will have a particular advantage: those who can work well and creatively with intelligent machines, those who are the best at what they do, and those with access to capital.

For each such tool, go through the key activities you identified and ask whether the use of the tool has a substantially positive impact, a substantially negative impact, or little impact on your regular and successful participation in the activity. Now comes the important decision: Keep using this tool only if you concluded that it has substantial positive impacts and that these outweigh the negative impacts.

execution should be aimed at a small number of "wildly important goals.

novelist Jonathan Franzen wrote a piece for the Guardian calling Twitter a "coercive development" in the literary world,

It's not neutral. They want you to use it in particular ways and for long periods of time. Because that's how they make their money.

If you service low-impact activities, therefore, you're taking away time you could be spending on higher-impact activities. It's a zero-sum game. And because your time returns substantially more rewards when invested in high-impact activities than when invested in low-impact activities, the more of it you shift to the latter, the lower your overall benefit.

How am I going to use this technology going forward to maximize its value and minimize its harms?

After thirty days of this self-imposed network isolation, ask yourself the following two questions about each of the services you temporarily quit: Would the last thirty days have been notably better if I had been able to use this service? Did people care that I wasn't using this service?

Bugün sürdürmekte oldu?umuz dijital hayatlar? kendimiz seçmedik. Daha ziyade, bir avuç teknoloji yat?r?mc?s?n?n ç?karlar?na hizmet etmek üzere ?irketlerin toplant? odalar?nda tasarlanm?? bir ya?am tarz? bu.