From the perspective of a leader, somebody who wants to hold onto power, it’s the worst form of government because it puts you at the greatest risk of losing power.
Think of an argument as a collaboration where the two sides are trying to find the right answer.
The art market is a market where commodification is the purpose even at the level of museums which effectively exist by virtue of the generosity of patrons.
The first serious discussion of a legal right to privacy in the United States didn’t come until the year 1890 and that was because of the invention of a technology and that technology was the Kodak camera.
An information diet has to be about personal responsibility.
There are other ways of negotiating that can actually get people more of what they want in their interactions.
There is an interesting interplay between power corrupting and corruption empowering. The causality does not go one way.
When you concede a point, what you're doing is making an investment in your ability to be taken seriously and listened to by people in the future.
My vision and view of negotiation is that we are all negotiating all the time.
Every time we learn something it’s a journey. We think we understand it, then we keep going, then we get confused again.
We really can’t tell the difference between people who might seek power for some greater good and people who seek power just to aggrandize themselves.
You can take your competitive drive and use it to make you more receptive to changing your mind if the evidence warrants it.
I'm not actually predicting that until 2029 that we will match human intelligence, but computers will nonetheless do things that humans can't do.
If you launch with today’s technology by the time you come to market you’re going to be out of business.
I think the difficult ending might be more realistic, but that doesn't mean we can't hope as well.