"Eventually, I stopped responding to my body. I was responding instead to a dashboard." — @Daojoan
This is a great point and very much translates to so many other parts of life/work where people stop listening to their "body" (or to their org/product/offering), outsourcing/numbing/dumbing down their decision making based on dashboards of collected metrics and then changing their behaviors on auto-pilot to improve said metrics — without ever asking themselves if the data collected actually represents answers to the right (or even important) questions...
Metrics always invite comparison & competition — on a global scale — often without considering our own subjective contexts/needs/limits/aims...
Does the number of copilot prompts per day on a CTO dashboard indicate a highly productive developer or does a big fat zero merely show a different approach to problem solving?
Does the lack of constant updates to a FLOSS project mean it's become neglected/unusable or does it simply indicate it reached a level of stability?
Likewise, does my product/app need constant UI changes/updates to "streamline" user experience (often without even consulting users) based on some "goal" metrics?
Am I seen as an unproductive FLOSS developer if my public commit log doesn't show daily updates? Do gaps indicate laziness, illness, deep thinking or work on other projects? Like gaps in a CV, will these gaps of activity data hinder future employment chances or would I even want to work with orgs who select on this criteria?
Is a hike only good/better because it exceeds X kilometers or Y elevation meters? How does one measure the stunning views or the quality of the company which shared that experience?
Enter the Monty Hall paradox, a powerful metaphor for organisational leadership.
New Essay 
