 |
|
|
|||||
When Apple removed the headphone jack from the iPhone 7 in 2016, the backlash was immediate and fierce. Tech reviewers called it “user-hostile and stupid.” Customers created petitions. Competitors ran ads mocking the decision. Yet today, wireless earbuds are ubiquitous, and the decision looks prescient rather than foolish. What Apple understoodand what most future-ready leaders eventually learnis that meaningful innovation requires disappointing people strategically. This isn’t the leadership advice you typically hear. We’re told to inspire, to build consensus, to bring everyone along. But an uncomfortable truth lurks beneath these platitudes: as your impact grows, so does your capacity to disappoint others. And rather than avoiding this reality, the most effective leaders learn to navigate it intentionally. When Success Creates an Expectation Trap Author Rebecca Solnit captures this paradox perfectly. After supporting a friend whose first book had become unexpectedly successful, she explained that “success is full of failures, at least in the eyes of others, who want things from you, more of them wanting more than you can ever deliver, so you live in an atmosphere of pressure, unmet expectation.” This is particularly acute in technology leadership, where decisions must often be made ahead of market readiness. The moment you create something valuable, people develop expectations about what should come nextexpectations that frequently conflict with the very innovation that made your work valuable in the first place. Consider Netflix’s pivot from DVD delivery to streaming. When announced in 2011, the company lost 800,000 subscribers and its stock plummeted 77%. Today, that disappointing decision looks like the defining move that secured Netflix’s future. Confidence: Not What We Think It Is The paradox exists for leaders across industries, though. Part of the challenge is that we fundamentally misunderstand confidence. As Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman explains, “Subjective confidence in a judgment is not a reasoned evaluation of the probability that this judgment is correct. Confidence is a feeling, which reflects the coherence of the information and the cognitive ease of processing it.” In other words, our feeling of confidence often has more to do with how neatly our story fits together than with its actual likelihood of being correct. This creates a dangerous dynamic in leadership, where seemingly “confident” decisions may simply reflect coherent but flawed narratives, especially when those narratives align with what stakeholders want to hear. This dynamic is especially dangerous in leadership, where the pressure to appear confident drives a pattern I’ve observed repeatedly: the rush to create strategies around emerging technologies (“What’s our AI strategy?” “What’s our blockchain strategy?”) rather than having the confidence to maintain core business strategies and incorporate new technologies experimentally. Dr. Tressie McMillan Cottom’s concept of “insecure overachievers” illuminates part of this pattern: leaders who achieve at high levels while seeking external validation often prioritize appearing forward-leaning over being truly purposeful. The result? Decision-makers chasing technologies rather than outcomes, pursuing strategies that sound forward-thinking but may actually disconnect organizations from their core mission and meaningful impact. The Mathematics of Confident Decision-Making In statistics, confidence intervals dont just tell us whether an effect existsthey reveal how certain we can be about what we know, which directly impacts our confidence to act. Mathematician Jordan Ellenberg illustrates this: a narrow confidence interval (such as between 0.5% and 0.5%) means you have good evidence the intervention doesn’t do anything, giving you the confidence to stop the initiative. A wide interval (such as between 20% and 20%) means you have no idea whether the intervention has an effect,” signaling you need more data before making a decisive call. In other words, this statistical principle offers a powerful parallel for leadership decisions: true confidence comes not from eliminating uncertainty, but from understanding precisely what we know and what we don’t, and responding appropriately. This distinction offers us a powerful framework for leadershipwhat I call the Strategic Disappointment Matrix: Quadrant 1: High Certainty / Low Disappointment These are the easy winsdecisions where data strongly supports a path that few will object to. Pursue these enthusiastically, but recognize they rarely lead to breakthrough innovation. Quadrant 2: High Certainty / High Disappointment Here lie the necessary disappointmentsdecisions like sunsetting beloved but unsustainable products or implementing essential security measures that create friction. The evidence clearly shows these moves are necessary, even though they’ll create disappointment. These require courage, but clear communication can minimize backlash. Quadrant 3: Low Certainty / Low Disappointment These are experimental spaces where you can test hypotheses with minimal risk. These low-stakes experiments often yield what I call “bankable foresights”insights about future priorities that you can invest in confidently even without complete certainty. Use these spaces intentionally to gather data that might eventually inform more consequential decisions in other quadrants. Quadrant 4: Low Certainty / High Disappointment This is where the biggest breakthroughsand biggest failureshappen. When Airbnb suggested people rent their homes to strangers, or when Amazon invested in AWS, these decisions had uncertain outcomes and disappointed many stakeholders. These require the highest level of judgment and often define a leader’s legacy. Understanding where your decisions fall in this matrix doesn’t eliminate uncertainty, but it helps you respond to it appropriately. Practicing Strategic Disappointment Dr. McMillan Cottom suggests that developing comfort with disappointing others is “a critical life-skill” worth deliberately practicing. She recommends setting “the intention to disappoint at least one person, in some real way, over the next 24 hours,” noting that “the more comfortable you get with the risk of disappointing, the better things go on all fronts.” For leaders, this practice might include: Distinguish types of disappointment. Differentiate between disappointments that challenge people productively versus those that harm needlessly. Create transparent decision frameworks. Develop and communicate clear values hierarchies that show which principles take precedence when trade-offs become necessary. Articulate the “futureready why.” Practice explaining unpopular decisions in terms of the longer horizon they enable, not just the immediate benefits. Build disappointment resilience. Develop personal practices that help you withstand the discomfort of being misunderstood or criticized for decisions you believe in. Measure meaningful impact. Create metrics that track long-term value creation, not just immediate satisfaction or engagement. Innovative Leadership Through Strategic Disappointment When Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella decided to shift the company’s focus from Windows to cloud computing and AI, many were disappointed. Windows had been Microsoft’s crown jewel for decades. Developers, partners, and even internal teams who had built careers around the operating system felt betrayed by this pivot. But Nadella was practicing strategic disappointment. Rather than trying to please all stakeholders in the short term, he disappointed some intentionally to position Microsoft for long-term relevance. The results speak for themselves. Microsoft’s market cap has increased from roughly $300 billion when Nadella took over to over $3 trillion today, making it one of the world’s most valuable companies. More importantly, this shift has positioned Microsoft as a leader in AI and cloud computingthe very technologies shaping our future. Nadella’s strategic pivot demonstrates a crucial truth for future-ready leaders: disappointing people isn’t a leadership failure. It’s often the necessary price of meaningful innovation. The confidence to disappoint strategically isn’t about being certain you’re right. It’s about having the clarity to recognize when immediate approval conflicts with long-term impact, and the courage to choose impact even when it hurts. In a world moving too fast for perfect certainty, tomorrow’s most valuable leaders won’t be those who pleased everyone today. They’ll be those who had the courage to purposefully disappoint when necessary, navigating uncertainty not by avoiding it, but by embracing it as the necessary terrain of meaningful change.
Category:
E-Commerce
Researchers funded by the U.S. Navy have used gene-editing technology to make house spiders produce red fluorescent silk. This might seem like a quirky scientific novelty, but the breakthrough is a critical step toward modifying spider silk properties and creating new supermaterials for industries ranging from textiles to aerospace. The team at Germanys University of Bayreuth, led by Professor Thomas Scheibel, successfully applied CRISPR-Cas9a molecular tool that acts as genetic scissors to cut and modify DNA sequencesto spiders for the first time. The study, published in the scientific journal Angewandte Chemie, demonstrates how this technology introduces modifications that enhance the extraordinary properties of spider silk, turning it into a next-generation supermaterial. In a press release, professor Thomas Scheibel, chair of biomaterials at the University of Bayreuth and senior author of the study, said, Considering the wide range of possible applications, it is surprising that there have been no studies to date using CRISPR-Cas9 in spiders. His team injected a solution containing CRISPR-Cas9 components into female Parasteatoda tepidariorum, a common house spider species. To facilitate the process, the spiders were anesthetized with carbon dioxide and manually held under a microscope. The solution, which included a gene encoding a red fluorescent protein (called mRFP), was delivered into the eggs within the females abdomens before mating with males so the resulting baby spiders could carry the gene modification. [Image: Edgardo Santiago-Rivera and Thomas Scheibel] What are scientists trying to do? The experiment set two objectives: first, to disable a gene called sine oculis, responsible for the development of all spider eyes, in order to study its function. And then second, to insert the fluorescent protein gene into the MaSp2gene, which produces the silk thread spiders use to move hunt, hike, and chill out. In modified specimens, disabling sine oculis caused total or partial eye loss, confirming its critical role in visual development. According to the study, without this gene spiders fail to form eye structures, though the cornea develops normally. But the breakthrough with far-reaching industrial implications is the silk modification. The injected fluorescent protein gene successfully integrated into the MaSp2 gene, causing fibers produced by the modified spiders to glow red under ultraviolet light. [Image: Edgardo Santiago-Rivera and Thomas Scheibel] According to Scheibel, they have demonstrated, for the first time worldwide, that CRISPR-Cas9 can be used to incorporate a desired sequence into spider silk proteins, thereby enabling the functionalisation of these silk fibres. He says that the ability to apply CRISPR gene-editing to spider silk is very promising for materials science researchfor example, it could be used to further increase the already high tensile strength of spider silk. This accomplishment was no small feat. Spider genomes are complex, and their embryonic developmentmarked by unique cell migration stagescomplicates genetic editing, according to the researchers. In fact, only 7% of egg sacs that were treated with the CRISPR solution contained modified offspring, a low efficiency rate typical for species with large broods (common house spiders carry about 250 spiders per sac). Additionally, the spiders they used are cannibalistic nature, which required them to be reared in isolation (not all spiders are cannibalistic in nature, but many do eat their males after mating and others eat each other). [Image: Edgardo Santiago-Rivera and Thomas Scheibel] The race for super silk It’s a very promising development indeed. Spider silk is one of natures strongest materials. Certain types of spider silk are significantly lighter and tougher than Kevlar. Silk is also far more elastic, which means it can stretch and return to its original shape without losing its strength. To top all this, spider silk production by spiders (or other animals, more on this later) does not involve the industrial processes, high energy consumption, and pollution associated with the manufacturing of synthetic materials like Kevlar. This is a major area of interest for biomimicry and sustainable materials. Until now, modifying spider silks properties required costly, lab-based post-extraction processing, which is difficult to scale. This study shows that altering silk directly within the organism is feasible, paving the way for custom-designed silks with enhanced properties. While spider silk remains unmatched in natural performance, CRISPR-edited silkworms are emerging as scalable alternatives. Silkworms can be farmed en masse (unlike solitary, cannibalistic spiders), and recent advances show their engineered silk reaches 1.3 GPa tensile strength, comparable to high-tensile steel, which is a steel alloyed with chromium, molybdenum, manganese, nickel, silicon, and vanadium. Companies like Kraig Biocraft Laboratories already use CRISPR toproduce spider-silk hybrids in silkworms, targeting industries like textiles and medical sutures. However, spider silk holds unique advantages over those genetically modified silkworms. Its dragline fibers are inherently stronger and 10 times finer. Using the method developed by Scheibels team, potential CRISPR-enhanced spiders are likely to gain more superpowers, like getting closer to Kevlar or gaining better electrical conductivity. Where super silk might be used In medicine, spider silks biocompatibility makes it ideal for dissolvable surgical sutures that reduce scarring and artificial tendons mimicking natural elasticity. Researchers are also developing 3D-printed scaffolds infused with silk proteins to regenerate bone or cartilage, leveraging silks porous structure to support cell growth. For drug delivery, silk microcapsules could release medications at controlled rates, improving treatments for chronic diseases. New applications can integrate silk in sensors for real-time health monitoring in implants or conduct electricity for flexible electronics. The U.S. Navys funding of the research makes sense too, given its interest in lightweight body armor. Spider silk can outperform Kevlar, while its elasticity reduces blunt-force trauma. In aerospace, silk composites could replace carbon fiber, cutting aircraft weight by 40% and improving fuel efficiency. NASA already explores silk-based materials for radiation shielding in space habitats, capitalizing on its strength-to-weight ratio. Companies like AMSilk and Spintex engineer spider silk proteins into biodegradable textiles, reducing reliance on synthetic fabrics derived from fossil fuels. Adidas has prototyped ultralight running shoes with silk midsoles, while Airbus tests silk-based cabin panels to lower aircraft emissions. Spintex claims that its energy-efficient spinning process1,000 times more efficient than plastic productioncould revolutionize sustainable fashion, addressing the industrys 10% global carbon footprint. Right now, Scheibels team is already exploring CRISPR edits to add moisture-responsive shrinking or toxin-detecting color changes to silk. Once they achieve whatever new wundersilks theyor the U.S. Navyhave in mind, they will have to come up with a way to mass-produce them. This evokes images of farms full of millions of genetically modified spiders, which sounds as fun as a rave with 10,000 zombies from The Last of Us. But the spider farms may never happen: As the researchers mention, many spiders are cannibals and the success rate of modification is still very low, so this will be a challenge. That is what makes genetically modified silkworms ideal to make spider-like silks, as they have been farmed for silk production since the neolithic, about 6,000 years ago, when Yangshao culture in China realized that silkworms could be raised to harvest cocoons that then got weaved to create silk fabric. The solution may be taking the successful spider DNA modifications they develop and using other animals to produce them, like silkworms or goats (yes, spider-goats are a thing). I’ll leave you at this point. Good luck in your dreams tonight, my arachnophobic friends.
Category:
E-Commerce
If you’ve always wanted to donate to Wikipedia but needed an extra nudge to do so, a new capsule collection by the German fashion brand Armedangels could be that reason. To mark Wikipedia’s forthcoming 25th anniversary next year, Armedangels designed a 14-piece collection that turns design features from the Wikipedia user interface and experience into brand elements. Its signature bright cobalt blue, called “hyperlink blue,” is a key color, along with white and yellow core colors. One design, featured on a T-shirt and sweatshirt, uses an iconic 1972 image of Earth called “Blue Marble” that was taken during the Apollo 17 mission and is in the public domain. [Photo: Armedangels] A text excerpt from “The Blue Marble” Wikipedia page is below the image, which is one of the most widely reproduced images in the world and “celebrates the freedom of knowledge,” according to the product description. Wikipedia’s serif W logo is featured throughout. The collection is available now via the Armedangels website. The Armedangels x Wikipedia collection includes items that equate knowledge to progress, with shirts promoting freedom, peace, and equality. Ball caps with slogans like “Open Source of Information” and “Yes, I know,” are fan merch for people who love going down multi-tab Wikipedia rabbit holes. The items range in price from about $16 for socks, $48 for hats, $57 for T-shirts, and $114 for sweatshirts. [Photo: Armedangels] The nonprofit Wikimedia Foundationwhich also operates tools like Wikimedia Commons and Wikibookssaw annual revenue of more than $180 million in 2024, more than $170 million of which came from donations (though it says just 2% of Wikipedia readers donate). Some hypebeast apparel might be able to nominally improve that percentage, and it comes as the site itself has become a political lightning rod, facing increasing attacks from some on the right. [Photo: Armedangels] Armedangels says every piece is made from 100% recycled material, and 12% of sales proceeds go to the Wikimedia Foundation. It’s “sustainability meets free knowledge,” as the fashion brand says. “Because when we know better, we do better.” Like the pro-reading, anti-book-ban capsule collection for Penguin Random House by Online Ceramics, Armedangels x Wikipedia lends street-fashion cred to book smartsand it raises money for valuable education resources at a time when anti-intellectualism is on the rise, and our information ecosystem has become especially polluted. Supporting a free online encyclopedia is one way to fight back. For Wikipedia, its volunteers, readers, and fans, the site is an effective line of defense against misinformation and ignorance. Now they have a limited-edition streetwear line that feels the same way.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||