This is full of contradictions and nonsense. For example, it starts out arguing that certain kinds of knowledge come best from exploration in leisure, yet near

This is full of contradictions and nonsense. For example, it starts out arguing that certain kinds of knowledge come best from exploration in leisure, yet near the end it also argues that you learn the most on the job when you're under pressure and everything is at stake. Which is it? (The latter I will say is false: In high risk situations, I often retreat to safe answers -- and I could construct an argument that this is very rational. More often I first learn in play, and then apply later in times of trial.) More disturbingly, it mixes religious language, including religious/academic/artistic ideas of monasticism, with ideas of (I assume Silicon Valley style) entrepreneurship. This is sick. And exactly as professors preach monastic values to their students (so they will work for free), the VCs at the top of Silicon Valley preach individual risk-taking to the each-probably-doomed "founders" who comprise their diversified portfolios. The people who believe it are being suckered. There are elements of this that I think are true. That we should sometimes leave the narrow, tracked paths that constrain us. That we should sometimes explore, without killing ourselves to increase whatever metric is used in this month's OKR. That we need longer term and bigger goals for our lives than the ones given to us by our bosses. All this I agree with. And yet -- still this essay leaves me with a very uneasy feeling, and a little nausea.