The article’s lead in story is about time constraints affecting an attendee. I think it’s condescending to refer to that as poor time management though. A bett

The article’s lead in story is about time constraints affecting an attendee. I think it’s condescending to refer to that as poor time management though. A better spin from OP would have been “… in favor of people whose contributions to society complicate their ability to attend the round the clock marathon of back to back meetings that all seem to suspiciously last for an about hour versus those who have few skills and positive contributions to make to the world at large and worked into a system where the only valuable thing they have to offer is to endlessly discuss things.” I do agree with OP’s sentiment that the article was pretty shallow and tropish. Not much new or insightful. Almost like a group of editors had a meeting and asked “what should we run today?” And an hourish later, we got this.