"Flattening workplace hierarchies ... so-called “flat” workplaces ... flattening hierarchies runs the risk of ... flattening workplace hierarchy is not only ... Workers found hierarchical companies were more predictable ... hierarchical structures in the workplace ... Hierarchies work."
Holacracy does not equal an absence of hierarchy or "flat" workplace.
"... as more of the world is explained — and ends up being not so divine after all ..."
I don't understand this sweeping statement by the author (who seems between the lines to be struggling with her own issues of faith and belief, and hence had to write a book about how gullible humans are).
Is she saying that something, once explained, can no longer be divine?
I think you're putting words in her mouth, so to speak. That paragraph begins by repeating a statement about God being found in the cracks between knowledge. I know I've read this elsewhere, it's not a new idea. The rest of the paragraph just restates this in a way that I think is very fair.
My direct answer: yes. IMO divinity is just magic backing a particular narrative. As we discover and accept alternative explanations for why things are the way they are, that magic disappears and the narrative loses power.
That does seem to be the implication. Personally, however, I disagree. I'm an atheist, and I still find wonder in the things that science explains, and I've always assumed that that feeling of wonder is along the lines of what religious people feel.
I'm also certain that I could (and have successfully) argue the point that religion and divinity and a relationship with god are in no way affected by scientific knowledge, regardless of what some fraction of very religious folks would have you think (I do not mean that I could argue successfully with that particular fraction - just those who are on the fence on the matter).
I grew up in Jersey, and for sure there's a lot that I don't like about the place.
Still I found this article very poorly-written, poorly-researched, sensational, weighed down by anecdotes, cliches and an exhausting "Poor UK, evil Jersey" pattern. It gets worse as the piece goes on, increasingly opinionated and accusatory.
I am not an expert, but I sense that very many factors went into creating the situation there, many of them outside forces, and it's not possible or helpful to caricature an entire island in this way to look for a simple cause and effect relationship.
You were probably already better informed on Jersey than most of us were before reading the article. There may have been significant details left out, but as a broad brush I felt the article probably did a good job of presenting a general picture of the island's economy.
Perhaps there are some important specifics that you would like to contribute, rather than just criticising the article's tone.
I suspect this would result in rather superficial weed destruction, since the roots underground would be unharmed and would cause the weed to regrow a few days later. Unrooting the weeds definitely sounds more reliable to me.
So you now you have to run your fleet of robot weeders over the field twice? That seems like a waste of time and $ when you could achieve the desired result in a single pass. every extra pass is also more soil compaction.
Pushing the weeds below the surface is probably less disruptive to the surrounding crops than tearing out the roots. And since you have to run the machine constantly anyway to prevent new weeds from establishing themselves, just poking them down repeatedly will eventually starve them of sunlight and kill them, or at least prevent them from ever growing large enough to cause a problem.
If you run the robot every week, burning off the stem & leaves, the plant will eventually starve.
Around here, we have an invasive species called scotch broom. If you cut off the plant at ground level, it will grow back. But if you cut it off after it flowers, it'll die. Mowing it flat regularly will also kill it.
From my perspective, this comment broadly captures what is so tragic for me about his situation and the potential pitfalls of isolation-by-riches: the apparent fact that the majority of people discount a wealthy man's cry for help (read "willingness to be vulnerable"), dehumanising him and robbing him of an opportunity to heal - whether through therapy, community, or some other significant life change.
They do that because they measure the rich person's woes and find that they are considerably less than theirs, its basically that they don't appreciate the person in the sedan chair complaining about the heat.
A wealthy person is still a person, but when another looks at their burden and finds it lighter than their own, they often don't pity them because they perceive they can much more easily mobilize their own help (see: an article about a billionaire's emotional state vs European immigration crisis.)
Basically, the "pitfall" of isolation by riches is a problem a large portion of humans would like to have.
Nobody is robbing Notch of his opportunity to heal. We as internet commentators can't do that. We're not really dehumanizing him, either-- just pointing out that his burden is light relative to most.
If you're having trouble carrying a light weight, sure, get help. It just seems pretty childish to complain to an open microphone about a something so petty. I have no doubt these emotions are very tough for Notch, and I see that I would probably have the same problems in his situation.
But seriously, this isn't the kind of thing you say to a wide audience without being completely out of touch. He should know better.
> just pointing out that his burden is light relative to most.
Yeah, and as someone who makes enough money to not worry about not being on the streets, but also not enough to be able to just do anything I want, my burden is light relative to people in 3rd world countries.
No matter what you say, someone's burden is light compared to another, and completely denying someone like Notch the right to be able to get their burden off their chest, just because their's is less than yours, is asinine.
When Open Exchange Rates  began making decent returns - not a $2.5billion exit trajectory by any means, but certainly enough to set me apart from my peers - I felt I was on the path to something great. I thought something like "Now that I don't need to trade my time for money, I'll be [popular, happy, fulfilled, 'enough']... and I'll grow automatically."
I awoke years later (thankfully only two) to find that I had none of what it would take to be happy, or to grow as a man, and a seeming eternity of free time stretching out before me to enjoy my comfortable isolation.
I only had to taste the false freedom of wealth - really just an appetiser - to know that no amount of resources would fulfil me if I could not meet basic emotional needs, go through pain and challenge, be vulnerable, build relationships, and self-nurture. God forbid I ever come into the kind of money he has - but if I do, I pray I would have the courage to start from scratch to build the life that nourishes my spirit.
I think many will take a high position, point a finger at this man, and feel good about themselves. It's easy to look at him and say "High value problems," and "He has nothing to complain about," or even "He should be X/do Y...", etc. The real tragedy for me is that his issue can be so socially unacceptable.
I rate him for being open and vulnerable about this part of the journey and hope he finds the peace he deserves.