Simply put, the smallest publishable part of knowledge work.
Think outline versus email, notes versus blog post. By breaking up work into its parts and saving those, we can become much more effective.
Long version here:
https://t.co/PtKv38gbYK
Become a learning worker by creating intermediate packets.
By narrowing the scope of my work and shipping more often, my knowledge work is more effective and valuable.
🧵 A thread with 7 reasons to create intermediate deliverables.
🔗 Link to my 2,300-word piece on the topic 👇
Simply put, the smallest publishable part of knowledge work.
Think outline versus email, notes versus blog post. By breaking up work into its parts and saving those, we can become much more effective.
Long version here:
https://t.co/PtKv38gbYK
• Provide value more often
• Become interruption-proof
• Create in any circumstance
• Stay motivated
• Help my future self
• Get more and better feedback
• Avoid heavy lifts
As a knowledge worker, I only create value when my output is used by someone else. I'm in the business of ideas, but if nobody uses them, my work is useless.
Shorter bursts of output give me more opportunities to help.
Working with knowledge means using your fragile working memory. The fuller that memory, the more impactful distractions.
Narrowing the work scope and externalizing it, it's easier to return to your work after an interruption.
Small, clearly scoped pieces of work enable me to match tasks to my current environment and energy level. The only condition for a working session is that I produce something I can ship, no matter how small.
Finishing up work more often and shipping it out for feedback is scary but also a powerful motivator. I have something to show, and the feedback makes it better.
My future self is just as much a reality for me as other people are. Whatever I produce is not only useful for others but also for myself.
Sending valuable packages through time, I make my own life easier.
People are more willing to provide feedback when it's a draft and requires just a few minutes of their time.
Bonus points if I can make people feel heard and show that they influenced the final deliverable.
When delivering a project, I don't need to do a big final push. Projects are a series of short loops where I produce or repurpose knowledge, share it, and integrate the feedback. I simply assemble pieces at the end.
This idea of creating smaller deliverables was taught to me by @fortelabs. His article on bending your productivity curves is worth reading if you want to get deeper into the why of this all.
https://t.co/VIXAkQ4QZR
You May Also Like
1/12
RT-PCR corona (test) scam
Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
2/12
It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
3/12
The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu
4/12
Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID
5/12
Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as
RT-PCR corona (test) scam
Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
4/10
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) October 22, 2020
...indication, first of all that testing for a (single) respiratory virus is done outside of surveillance systems or need for specific therapy, but even so the lack of consideration of Ct, symptoms and clinical findings when interpreting its result. https://t.co/gHH6kwRdZG
2/12
It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
6/10
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) October 22, 2020
The neither validated nor standardised hypersensitive RT-PCR test / Ct 35-45 for SARS-CoV-2 is abused to mislabel (also) other diseases, especially influenza, as COVID-19.https://t.co/AkFIfTCTkS
3/12
The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu
External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.https://t.co/mbNY8bdw1p pic.twitter.com/OQBD4grMth
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) November 29, 2020
4/12
Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID
Thread web\u2b06\ufe0f\u2b07\ufe0f
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) December 16, 2020
The fabrication of the "asymptomatic (super) spreader" is the coronation of the total nons(ci)ense in the belief system of #CoronasWitnesses.
Asymptomatic transmission 0.7%; 95% CI 0%-4.9% - could well be 0%!https://t.co/VeZTzxXfvT
5/12
Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as
8/8
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) March 24, 2020
By the way, who the f*** created this obviously (almost) worldwide definition of #CoronaDeath?
This is not only medical malpractice, this is utterly insane!https://t.co/FFsTx4L2mw
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.