My (23M) mother (58F), after three weeks of traveling through Europe, came down with the flu or something similar. Her only symptom has been extreme fatigue, and she asked for wheelchair service through the airports and asked me to carry all of her luggage. Traveling with her was difficult, as she is the type to become extremely agitated and lash out whenever things get stressful. Even something as simple as walking to a new hotel would get her dialed to 11 and lead to her snapping at you for suggesting an alternative route. When we got home, she continued to say that she was too exhausted to do anything and has asked me to do her normal share of chores, buy everything and bring her things from the kitchen as needed. I have done all of these things dutifully, but when I was out and about, she sent me a text saying “If I die…” and went on to explain how her life insurance policy worked, gave me the number of her manager and told me to call them to collect her things and said me that she would give me important information later that night. Panicking and thinking something major had happened, I called and asked what happened. When she told me that nothing had changed and she still just felt extremely tired, I became very upset with her and told her to not send me texts suggesting that her death was imminent. In response, she said “You have zero empathy” and hung up the phone.
I confronted her when I got home (and delivered her popsicles and tylenol), and said that she had leveled a very serious accusation at me that I did not appreciate, and that in fact, she was inconsiderate to scare me with death talk when nothing had changed and her doctor had even said that all she needed was bed rest and fluids. Initially she said nothing and asked me about something else. I repeated myself and she kept saying “ok”. I told her that ok is not a response and I wanted a proper answer from her, and she said “you shouldn’t start arguments with people when they’re feeling shitty”. When I pressed she paused for a few seconds and said “you shouldn’t be in here, I don’t want you to get sick”. I refused to relent, and she raised her voice at me that she felt like shit and that she had said I had no empathy because of my demeanor. I repeated that saying I have no empathy when I’m doing everything she asked of me and simply asked her to stop with the death talk is completely unfair and excessive. She then started talking as if she was going to cry and went on about how she’s “done so much for me” and “haven’t I shown you that I love you?”. She has done a lot for me, but it’s a false dichotomy to say I can’t be appreciative of that and critical of her behavior.
After going around in circles, I realized that I was never going to get an apology or acknowledgement that she shouldn’t have said that, and that she would continue to use diversion and manipulation tactics. She asked me to get her another popsicle, which I debated but did despite my frustration. After this conversation, the illusion finally disappeared and I realized what she truly was - a loving but unstable individual with deeply unhealthy attachment patterns and an inability to accept criticism, who will not shy away from underhanded tactics to avoid doing so. Which led me to accepting that I am never going to have a healthy, close relationship with her.

SYNOPSIS: Walking your OP monster girlfriend home is easy. No one messes with you. Getting back to your house on your own? That's the tricky part.
What's worse than an eldritch building? How 'bout a bigger one?
First Previous (See NEXT>> in comments)
Chapter Cover Art (From Mood Writing Sample)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Norman took one look at the towering building to his left. Then he took off.
.
.

“̷̵̵̷̶̷̶̶̸̶̶̸̴̡̛̮͉̹̪̼̙̤̲̤͔̗̮̥̣̜͓̟̞̃̔̈́̑̈̍͌̂̂̐̋͛̉̓G̵̶̸̷̴̸̵̵̴̶̸̷̸̴̶̨̢̧̞͈̠̜̳̪͎̬̜̱̫͚̝̩̑̒͐́͆̃̿̉̆̉̃̓̀̎̐͂̎̒̕̕͘͝͝Ǵ̷̷̷̴̸̸̷̷̷̷̵̨̢̞̥͓̰͖͙̰̝͖̩̺͍͎͉͌̽̂́͐̓̀͒̐͗́M̴̷̶̵̴̷̵̶̵̴̷̷̢̡̧̢̛̫̲͕͇̗̯͚̥͙͓͓̀̒͑͒̂̊̅̐͛̂̄͌̈̚͝M̴̷̶̵̴̷̷̶̷̬̼̭̗͍̺̳̩̱͍̂̄̾͂̔̽̇̀͝͝͝͠M̶̯̙̥͕̞̰̗̗͐̔!̸̞̞̬̼̖̩̈́̇͊͐̾͑͋̉!̷̧͈̘̬̆͑͝!̶̤̜̔̓̆̅̔͆͘͝”̸̨̧̼̭̫̒͜

.
The new hunting cry boomed through his body. It was much louder than the first building’s, albeit shorter, like a tap on the shoulder from a titan proclaiming its presence to the world.
Of course, the tap of a titan could flatten a man.
Norman fell. His legs had simply stopped working. Jaws clenched, he forced his will into wobbly muscles. His palms slammed into the waterlogged street, stopping the fall. With a sharp push, he sprang back to his feet and ran on.
Norman yanked out the remaining two flash grenades on the go, strung them together, armed and drew back for a throw.
.
.

“̷̬̳̙̍̎̆G̴̥͇̥͔͕̫̈̀M̵̛͇̜͙͇̫͔̭̩̝̜̓̈̏̓̓̀͛̚͜͝͝M̷̩͈͉̘͙̿͌̃̽͂̃̏̏̓̾̈́͌̈́̉̅̄̉͘!̷̢̧̢̤͓̭̖̝̏̏̄̓̾̉̆͋͘͝!̵͍̱̼̮̯̺̲͙̖̮̗͓̻̓̊͂̒̔͐̎͘͘̚!̵̙͍̟̌͒̃͂̎͠”̶̡̛̠̱̭̞̹̟͉̒̎̎̂͂̐̈́̓̄̚̕

.
.
That quick boom pounded through him. His fingers faltered. The flash grenades slipped from his grip and fell. He was still recovering from the sound when they went off at his feet. The nightsight filtered the flash, so he didn’t go blind. He’d gutted the flash grenade’s speakers, so he didn’t go deaf. The peeping building could deafen him all on its own … no, this wasn’t a peeping building. He’d slew a peeping building. They were small fries by comparison.
This was an eyescraper.
Tentacles the width of busses unsheathed from its sides. Even if he’d managed to launch the grenades and bathe it in smitelight, he suspected that wouldn’t be enough.
Norman sliced at its eyes with a focused beam. It barely flinched. Maybe if it got close enough, he could affect it a bit. By then, it would be too late.
Throbbing chuffs thundered from the monster. It sounded like a laugh.
Norman shot it a defiant glare. He bolted. Not fast enough. He could feel the giant closing in. So, he moved faster. Then faster, and still faster. His muscles blared their warnings. Rain lashed his face. He felt the air begin to resist his movements as he reached a speed at which it mattered. It was in his way, so he pushed through it too. No one was there to tell him he was moving far faster than any human known to history. All he cared about was hearing that thing fall behind him, and so it did. The tremours of its tremendous movements grew fainter.
At the end of the street, an apartment building came into view. Norman threw himself against it, climbing with the reckless abandon of a madman. He was halfway to the top.
.
.

“̷̧̨̭̹̘̥̮͖̤̻̥̬̌̀͒̔͌̊̀̚͜͜͠Ǧ̶̨̨̧̺̘̰̗̘̥̝̗̦̩͖͎͋̈͑͐̒̽̉̔͛̾̒́̕ͅM̴̨̉́̾̉͂͆̔̿̀̃̇̎̍͆̂̽͗̔͘͠ͅM̷̝̻̱̆̍͜!̴̮̬̯̮̦̖́͂̆͋̿̇̎̄̄̅̂͑̎̀̕͘͝͝͝!̸̲͎̲̼̠̮̱͖̥̭̤̩͓̘̜͈̟̖̮̰̦͖̀̂͗͂̽̈́̋͌͂̐̓̈̕!̸̜̆̿̋̔̽̕”̷̢̦̜̰̼̳̝͓̆͗̈́̆̆̑̃̾͑̀͗͒͆́͐͒̈́̿̽̕̕͜

.
.
His grip went limp. He fell. Struck the ground. His head bounced. The world grew fu...z z y.
.
.
.
W
h
y
.
.
.
w
a
s
.
h
e
.
r
u
n
n
i
n
g
.
a
g
a
i
n
?
.
.
.
.
.
.

_CHAT

• LEMMY.OUTA.HERE: (Stupse) Well, he ded.
• BAJANETTE11: ARN74, JUST GO AND FIND HIM!!!
• ARN74: HE DIDN’T SEND ME DE PIN! DIS BAAARE STRESS! NORMAN, YOU PUNK! YOU EMOTIONALLY INVESTED ME IN THIS CHANNEL! IF YOU DIE NOW I’M GONNA KILL YOU!

Something was yapping in the background, but it wasn’t important. He felt fine. Everything was fine. Why not rest? Why was he even-?

_CHAT

• ARN74: YOU PROMISED ME YOU WOULDN’T LEAVE AMY!!

What? No he didn’t! Promises weren’t for trolls! Why would he leave Amy anyway?
.
.
“̸̼͔̖̜̫͍͚̊́̽͆̓̂̋̋͐̕Ģ̴̢͕͉̯̺̗̖͔͙̪͓̻̯̫̭̙̱͕̠̭̩̌M̸̨̧̘̟̹̖̻̲͍̭͓͉̰͙̦̣̜͉̻̎̅͗̇̈́̈̏͌̓̾̀̈̈́͜M̵̢̢̖̯̦͍͕̝̯̥̹̪̠̥̰̝̖̊͛̀̇͜!̵̢̡̡͚͕̘̟͕̥̦̪͆̈́̿͆!̴̛̹͈̜̥͔̬͎̪̩͚̦̯̟̘̩̰̳̍̑̂́̌͌̎́̒͋̽̿̑͌͝͝!̴̛̥͕̪͂̂̂̈̓͆͗̇̄̈́̌̅̎͂̕̚̕͝͠”̷̧̧̛̠̝̰̞̘͙̥̖͎̭̞̜̳̟̓͆̌̊̃̔́͒͋̇̈́͘̚͠͝ͅ
.
.
Oh, right. There was a skyscraper running him down. To think he lived in a world where that made any sense. He rubbed his throbbing head. It was hard to think, though.

_CHAT

• ARN74: TRY AN CLIMB DE TING OPPA!

Brain fog would have to wait.
In two twos he jumped onto the side of the building and kept going up and up without breaking the momentum of the leap. Adrenaline had challenged gravity. Gravity lost. There was no pause to assess handholds. There was no rain stinging his face. In his mind, there was only ‘CLIMB, CLIMB, CLIMB!’ Crest the rooftop. ‘RUN, RUN, RUN!’ Descend the other side ‘JUMP!’ Gravity greedily reclaimed Norman, dragging him 4 storeys down at breakneck speed. He hit the ground in a parkour roll. Bruised a bone. Nearly fractured a shoulder. Wrenched his spine. Joints, muscle, ligaments almost popped. They didn’t.
He was running again.
Norman had never heard a building shred like paper. He’d never thought to wonder what it sounded like.
*( ( BMMM! ) ) ( ( BMM! ) ) ( ( BOOM! ) ) *

SHHHHHRRRRRRMMMM!

Now he knew.
Those booms … was it the eyescraper’s tentacles breaking the sound barrier, or punching holes through the apartment building? Maybe both. It didn’t matter. What mattered was that it was tearing the building in two with the ease of one parting curtains. Buildings were not designed to be parted. Two became legions as the sundered building collapsed.
Norman rushed for an abandoned truck, slid beneath the trailer. Not quite fast enough. Most of the rubble didn’t reach him directly, but upon hitting the ground? It pulverised into a blast of cloud like a sandstorm. Hissing beneath the trailer, the dust stung at his ankles. He ignored it, racing for the truck’s cabin at the front. Perched on the step beneath the door, he braced as the dust raced beneath, around and above him. The cabin was his shield. He flinched to a duck when its windows shattered as the dust cloud blasted straight through them. The truck rocked and slid slightly, bombarded by wind and dust. It lurched as a chunk of debris finally reached it, crumpling the trailer like cheap foil.
Time to move.
Particles prickled Norman’s eyes, finding their way through the nightsight. He took a fresh glimpse of the path ahead before clouds of grey engulfed it all.
Memorised.
He dashed on. A split second later, the cabin was levelled under a larger slab of concrete. More sporadically thundered down around him. His eyes were squeezed shut, denying entry to any more particles. He scrambled through the street, dodging obstacles from memory. As for the concrete rainfall that couldn’t be seen? He had some prayers about that, but it probably came out like half-baked gibberish.
Norman chanced opening his eyes. They watered like crazy. At least most of the dust was gone. Behind him, the eyescraper’s menacing silhouette was picking through the rubble. Finally, an unblocked street was in sight. He rounded the corner.
.
“̵̨̢̮͕̻̲̺́͠G̵̣̒́̓̽̅̊͘͝Ọ̷̝̣͓͙͔̀ͅͅǪ̷̜̺͚̲̯̭̈́̍͂͑̋̋̅͂̅́M̷̨̤̭͈̯̤͋̾̏̈̅̉̀̏͘M̵̡̢̙̱͌̊̓͒́͌Ḿ̸̳͗̀̀͐͒͗́͠ͅ!̷͍͉̣̪̫͙̳̲̤̎̀̾̅̈́̔̎̑͘͜͝͝!̴̨͈͖̘̖̅͛̋̽͠!̸͎̩͓̫̥̼̫̊”̵̫̗̞̣̝̃̅̕͘͜͜͝ͅ
.
Another peeping building, rumbling in from the new street. Alright. Straight it was.
.
“̷̢̧̻̹͚͔̾G̵̳̭̾̃̎̍̌̂̈́̂͛͘M̶̧̠͇͔͚͉̮͈̰͒͊́̏̔̄̾̊͐̒͂͜M̸̳͓̋͋̔͑̔̔̕͝Ő̷͓̟̱̮͓̍̂̾̽̇͘͠Ô̸̧̫͉̮͚̥̥̯̈̾͋̅͂͘̚M̶̢̫̥̰̮̪͙̬̙̗̺̽͒͐͌̋̈̄͆͝M̴̢̧̧̛̗͔͓̫̭̳̱͑̉!̵̡̛̛͍̲̓̅̑̈́̿̏͘̕͠!̸̧̖͔̣̩̏́͋̀͛͂̏̀̇̑͐!̴̧͕̝̮̤̱͈̬͋”̸͓̉̈́̑̎͊̌
.
Maybe not. A third building emerged from the rainfall ahead. All streets blocked. He glanced about. All alleys still blocked. This really was a hunting net, but this much energy for a tiny human? Predators weren’t usually like this.
He ran for the nearest building that wasn’t occupied by eldritch calamari.

( ( BOOMM! ) )

The eyescraper’s tentacle crossed his path. Its supersonic shockwave sent him flying.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Norman came to. Rain poured against his face as he lay on his back. How long was he out? Why was it so cold? The atmosphere didn’t quite feel right. It didn’t look right either. Something about the colours, or subtle lack thereof. Everything seemed a bit desaturated. Norman sat up and coughed his lungs out, evicting a mix of dust and rain water collected in his slackly gaping mouth. Buildings towered above him on every side, a bit too close for comfort.
.
“̸̮̼͍̻̯̲̹͓̬̻̓̍G̷̛̖̙̰̰̟̓Ḿ̸̧̨͊̊̔͒͌̆͆͘͠͝M̷̧̺̏̿̆͑͆͋̅͌̕͝G̵̰̺͇̺̯̲͇̠͖͂͜M̸̡̨͕̹̗̥̎͑́̾!̸͇͙͚̝̩͕̙̒!̵͙̬̮̪̏̍!̶͔̪͉̙̘̃̐̄͝”̶̡̡̥̫̻̝̜̫͙̩͛ͅ
.
Oh, right, those weren’t just buildings.
Norman raised a finger, gesturing to wait. “Could you *kaff!* quit subwoofin’ at me for, like, ten seconds!”
“Plucky.̵͚͐͝ for all seasons I .̵̦̺͐̅see,” came a skin-crawling voice from behind him.
Norman swung back his smitelight. It barely moved half a foot, then it stopped. Rather, something stopped it. That ‘something’ was cold. So cold. His wrist felt the chill without even touching it.
Norman turned, slowly, so as not to trigger further attacks. He found himself looking up.
Eight feet tall. Dark grey skin. A grin that went a little too wide. Dagger teeth. An open-chested jacket, revealing sinewy muscles with luminous markings like tattoos. His ebony eyes bore penetrating white pupils. Of all his traits, the dreadlocks stood out most. They belonged in a nightmare, dancing through the air with a life of their own. Somehow, they looked blacker than black, absorbing every ray of light or heat that came their way. That icy chill in the air shifted with the movements of his dreadlocks. They seemed to drink life from the air itself. Norman almost found it hard to breathe. One dreadlock clutched Norman’s smitelight, only by the tip, but its grip was iron.
Norman stared the tall man down.
The nyctal’s grin grew by a smidgeon.
Taking a calculated risk, Norman released the smitelight. Perhaps a peace offering would do good.
“Good.̷̧͋͌̎̿ boy,” the tall man nodded, admiring the smitelight as the dreadlock rotated it. “Clever.̴̧̤̩͈͓̖͂ͅ toy.”
Norman noted an understated Jamaican accent in his voice.
More dreadlocks slithered across the smitelight, as if tasting its every nook and cranny.
Norman did his best to look casual as he scanned for an escape route. The eyescraper’s tentacles had wrapped around the street, fencing him in.

_CHAT

• BAJANETTE11: 😳
• DARCIE222: okay, i’m back
• HARD-BACK-M8N: who you is again?
• DARCIE222: i left after the twilight angel sleep paralysis
• LEMMY_OUTA_HERE: And you’re back for more?
• DARCIE222: wonna know it impossible to stay away from a channel like dis

Norman looked at the tall nyctal again.

_CHAT

• DARCIE222: 😲 WHO IS THAT?!? AND WHY IS HE KIND OF …??? 😍
• MUNSTER-VERSER: I KNOW!!!
• BAJANETTE11: HE LIKE A VAMPIRE RASTA MAN! ❤❤❤
• ENTO_MOLLY: MOVE OVER MIGUEL O’HARA!! 😍🥰😘
• BAJANETTE11: NORMAN ASK FOR HE NUMBER!!!
• NORMAN: I HERE ABOUT TO DIE AND WONNA WANT HE PHONE NUMBER!?!

The nyctal’s eyes shifted to Norman inquisitively. He frowned, raising an eyebrow as the comments piled up. Finally, he smirked mischievously.
“Your fanbase has peculiar tastes,” purred the tall man.

_CHAT

• ENTO_MOLLY: 😳 Is … he talking about us? HE CAN SEE THE CHAT???
• DARCIE222: THE WAY HE SAID IT!!!
• DARCIE222: HBVJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJKL;K''
• LEMMY_OUTA_HERE: Did she just pass out on the keyboard?
• LIKKLE-BOY: lol!
• ARN74: you’re simping. Norman’s about to die, and you’re simping

The tall man handed Norman his smitelight.
Norman’s suspicious gaze flicked between the nyctal and the weapon. Finally, he reached out and took hold of the smitelight.
It crumbled in his fingers like ice-cold ashes. If not for the insulation gloves, he might have gotten frostbite.
The nyctal laughed.
Norman didn’t find it particularly amusing.
The tall man sauntered towards the eyescraper. Beyond it was a darkness even the nightsight had difficulty piercing. He beckoned Norman as if it were an afterthought.
“Please come in, .̵̭̻͌̓̂Norman.̶̲͕͇̅̑̚,” the nyctal instructed.
Norman stared stubbornly, hands in his pockets as he rocked on his heels. He felt for his smartphone. It wasn’t there. When had he lost it?
Without looking back, the nyctal held up Norman’s phone. It disintegrated between his fingers as he rubbed them together.
Norman glared. At least the guy hadn’t pickpocketed deeply enough to find other things.
“Hey. To whom do I owe the … pleasure?” Norman almost had to push the last word through his teeth.
The nyctal stopped in the eyescraper’s doorframe. Shrouded in shadow, little could be seen of him, save the piercing white pupils peering out. Then the glint of his Cheshire grin.
“.̴̜͓̭̻̤̍̈́̆͑͑John Crow.̸̻̮̓̈́̏̓͘,” he answered, before receding into the darkness.
The eyescraper’s tentacles dragged in across the street, corralling Norman towards the building. With an exasperated groan, he trudged towards the main entrance.
“I want my bed,” grumbled Norman.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Become a free member on Patreon to read Part 14, 'Sleeping Giant', early! It will be released there today or tomorrow. For the visual 'mood writing' version (previously called 'artitext') and more Caribbean sci-fi, become a paid member for only $3! See links in comments.
First Previous (See NEXT>> in comments)

Hi!
I’m currently looking at potentially selling some of my collection. I’m UK based and was fairly active in the community around 2019/2020.
I still care deeply for my furbs, but I’m emigrating to the US at some point this year and really need the money and do not have the space to transport all of them. I’m looking at maybe keeping only half of my collection, if that.
I was wondering where the best places would be to sell my furbs? I bought mine pretty much all through eBay. I need them gone fairly quickly. I’ve considered Facebook but have no idea if the groups I was in are still active? I was also wondering if the prices have fluctuated at all. I paid anywhere from £20-£30 depending on the Furby, and am trying to at least get that amount back. They’re all in varying conditions, but are cosmetically fine though some have custom eyes.
Thanks in advance! :)

In today’s evolving and competitive landscape, the value of innovation is shifting from the traditional closed systems approach to a more open, decentralized, and community-driven approach. Paul Lalovich and Tesha Teshanovich from Agile Dynamics outline what is driving the trend, its implications for organizations, and how leaders can successfully operate at the forefront of the shift.
Innovation transcends the mere conceptualization of fresh ideas; it is the actionable process of enhancing existing products or conjuring entirely new offerings. While there is a strong correlation between R&D and innovation – with the former serving as a wellspring for pioneering thoughts – the journey from groundbreaking research to practical utility can be intricate and protracted.
However, it’s worth noting that innovation isn't solely tethered to structured R&D. It can spontaneously arise from sheer curiosity, a spark of inspiration, or even the simple act of refining or tweaking existing methodologies.
Firms might invest in R&D to catalyze innovation, but they can also harness external advancements – referred to as ‘spillovers’. After all, groundbreaking knowledge isn't always the exclusive domain of its creators, making external inspirations invaluable.
Emerging from a robust foundation of innovation, soft power presents tangible advantages. Leaders in technology often establish benchmarks that others deem beneficial to adopt. As a result, global standards lean favorably toward those pioneers. Moreover, countries recognized for their innovative acumen become prime territories for patent filings. These innovation hubs magnetize not just domestic but international investments and capital.
Perhaps the most profound testament to their soft power is the allure they hold for top-tier talents. For instance, Silicon Valley has evolved into a global nexus, drawing in exceptional minds from the realms of information, communication, and digital technologies. Such concentrations of talent can significantly influence a nation’s trade dynamics.

Tech monopolies slow down innovation

In the arena of global economic dominance, competition emerges as the cornerstone, propelling nations to the forefront of innovation and growth. While Chinese strategies appear to have adapted, embracing the dynamism of competitive markets, the United States stands at a crossroads. Some of its tech behemoths promote their size and market leadership as pivotal for cutting-edge innovation.
Yet, it is crucial to discern the nature of this innovation and whose interests it truly serves. Does it prioritize shareholder returns, or is there a broader, national interest at play? As smaller, agile firms emerge, emphasizing true boundary-pushing innovation, one must ponder: Is the spirit of unbridled competition – a force that once fueled the American economy – being overshadowed by the looming giants?
In the nuanced interplay between governmental oversight and market forces, recent actions within China's technology sector provide a captivating study of regulatory boundaries. This phenomenon, aptly termed ‘de-tycoonification’, captures a deliberate effort to harmonize enterprise innovation with centralized checks.
A leading digital commerce platform in China encountered regulatory attention. The swift determination that its practices were anti-competitive, accompanied by a significant financial penalty, symbolizes a broader intent to redefine market paradigms. Prompt official communique following these events conveys a clear perspective: monopolistic behaviours can inhibit the holistic evolution of a market-based economy.
This stance also emphasizes that thoughtful regulations, rather than restricting growth, might actually serve as pillars to stabilize and nurture it. The regulatory web further ensnared another major digital entity in China, underscoring the principle that technological ingenuity should operate within established ethical and legal frameworks. Such internal checks within China challenge certain dominant narratives in global tech centres.
The notion that maintaining a robust market stature acts as a shield against global tech adversaries comes under scrutiny. The introspective regulatory steps within China necessitate a broader re-evaluation of such assumptions.
The tech landscape today is unmistakably marked by the towering presence of Big Tech, but what underlies this dominance might point towards a concerning reduction in competitive intensity. For two decades, the profits raked in by American tech behemoths have remained unparalleled, with market valuations suggesting this trend is expected to continue, if not amplify, in the coming years.
Such sustained, sky-high profitability isn't typical in a genuinely competitive market. In such a setting, rivals and newcomers usually exert downward pressures, ensuring no single entity retains an overwhelming edge for extended periods. The tech industry's trajectory further points towards a rising penchant for consolidation. This is evidenced by the substantial acquisitions of budding companies by the tech titans.
Data sourced from Mergermarket underscores an uptick in acquisition activity by these colossal tech firms, particularly post-2010. The symbiotic relationship between persistent high profits and a trend toward industry concentration suggests that the tech market might be veering away from the vibrant competitive arena it once was.

Cardwell’s law

The tech landscape’s evolution, in its relationship with innovation, is witnessing a palpable shift in entrepreneurial motivation and vision. Historically, the fervour of pioneering something transformative, encapsulated in the ‘moonshot thinking’, drove entrepreneurs. This audacious spirit envisioned groundbreaking entities akin to the tech luminaries of the late 20th and early 21st century. Yet, today’s entrepreneurial aspirations seem more tempered.
Instead of fostering ambitions of building the next revolutionary tech empire, there’s a growing inclination towards securing an acquisition by an existing tech colossus. This shift in sentiment dims the likelihood of a new tech juggernaut rising to challenge the incumbent titans. Post the era of computer-centric, web-driven, and smartphone-related innovations, a cloud of uncertainty looms over the emergence of new tech powerhouses.
Notably, the promising technological domains of the upcoming decade – be it autonomous vehicles with their exorbitant R&D costs, virtual or augmented reality's significant development expenditures, the data intensity of artificial intelligence, or drones and the Internet of Things with their challenging profit margins – present formidable entry barriers.
These hurdles, combined with a changing entrepreneurial landscape, cast a shadow on the future dynamism of tech innovation. Cardwell's elucidation on the patterns of technological evolution offers a poignant lens through which to view the current landscape dominated by Big Tech.
Donald Stephen Lowell Cardwell’s seminal work from 1972 suggests that technological vigor within societies is not an enduring flame, but a fleeting burst of brilliance. Within the European context, as one nation's innovative energy began to wane, another would rise, ensuring a consistent relay of progress across the continent.
Visualize this relay of innovation as a torch, brilliant yet intense. Historically, regions such as Northern Italy, Southern Germany, Spain, and Portugal, and later Holland, Britain, the United States, and Germany, took turns in holding this torch, leading the march of innovation. Yet, no single society clung to this leadership for extended durations. The relay ensured that as one nation's innovation diminished, another took up the mantle, propelling the collective forward.
This phenomenon, coined as ‘Cardwell’s Law’ by Joel Mokyr, posits that when left in isolation, a society’s technological creativity is but a brief spark. Over time, conservatism’s stifling grip, intent on preserving existing structures of power and privilege, often curtails this innovative drive.
This is where the analogy becomes particularly relevant for the Big Tech landscape. In today’s digital age, a few colossal entities dominate, much like the leading nations of old Europe. Yet, as these tech giants solidify their positions, they risk becoming victims of the very conservatism Mokyr speaks of.
Instead of being conduits for continual innovation, their sheer dominance and entrenched positions could lead to a stagnation in technological creativity. As they grow in size and influence, there is an increasing tendency to preserve the status quo, which inadvertently suppresses the innovative spark found in smaller, more agile entities.

Decentralization and open innovation

In the contemporary milieu characterized by the overwhelming dominance of Big Tech monopolies, the paradigms of decentralized innovation and open innovation emerge as potentially transformative alternatives.
The concept of distributed strategy borrows from nature, suggesting that in the same manner that organisms such as trees maximize their efficiency by creating multiple self-similar structures like leaves instead of solely relying on a single core trunk, businesses too need to shift their focus from purely scaling their core processes to nurturing multiple iterative strategies at the organizational peripheries. This can be encapsulated in the mantra of ‘Think Local, Act Global’.
In essence, companies must attune to the nuanced demands and opportunities of each local market, while simultaneously integrating these learnings into a broader global strategy. This is particularly evident in industries undergoing rapid transformation; for instance, the automotive industry's evolution from merely selling cars to offering comprehensive mobility solutions, a shift that is predicted to significantly alter its revenue structure by 2035.
In parallel, in our data-driven age, there is an increasing realization that the sheer volume of data is less crucial than its meaningful interpretation. Organizations need to pivot from prioritizing data accumulation to developing advanced algorithms capable of drawing insights from fragmented, patchy datasets. In the rapidly shifting landscape of today's global business environment, numerous established multinational corporations find themselves at a perplexing crossroads.
The crux of their predicament stems from a foundational dilemma: how to juxtapose traditional scale-driven strategies with the emergent imperative of Distributed strategies. To dissect this conundrum, one must appreciate the inherently divergent organizational philosophies underpinning scale and distributed strategies. Transitioning from a scale-centric model to a distributed-oriented one is not merely about implementing a series of organizational modifications, no matter how profound.
The shift demands a comprehensive reimagining of the organizational ethos and operational mechanics. Moreover, it is a fallacy to view these strategies as mutually exclusive. In actuality, they exist on a continuum, each holding its unique value. The challenge for modern enterprises lies in striking an optimal balance between harnessing the benefits of scale and the agility of Distributed strategies. Regrettably, the journey to this equilibrium is riddled with pitfalls, and many companies, even with their vast resources and global reach, have faltered in this endeavor.
Contrary to scale-centric entities that depend on static assets, with streamlined yet inherently slower supply chains, Distributed organizations harness networks characterized by adaptability and continuous transformation. These networks are primed for swiftly addressing specific local requirements and seizing niche market prospects.
Such frameworks incorporate a blend of proprietary micro-production facilities, possibly utilizing innovations like 3D printing; leasing assets from providers offering asset-on-demand services; and coordinating flexible ecosystems of regional digital collaborators. The overarching aim is twofold: continuously devise innovative solutions tailored for local clientele and escalate them to various markets with optimal speed.
Distributed-oriented organizations prioritize decentralization, contrasting with the top-down hierarchies commonly seen in scale-driven entities. Within these structures, decision-making isn't confined to a centralized corporate core. Instead, considerable authority is delegated to customer-centric teams positioned away from the primary headquarters. This design fosters agility, allowing for a rapid response to localized demands and new opportunities.
Some multinational corporations have observed marked improvements in their performance metrics after such decentralization. They empowered regional leaders with financial oversight, decision-making rights, streamlined communication channels to the central office, and enhanced access to market analytics.
Another trend, seen in the case of an appliance industry giant, involves an even more radical shift. This entity introduced a unique organizational framework aimed at minimizing the distance between the enterprise and its customer base. In a bold move, an entire level of middle management was eliminated, redistributing power to numerous newly-formed, semi-independent, customer-aligned business segments. These units operate in synergy, linked by a unified digital platform.
Further reading: Knowledge and venture capital as a driver of innovation.
Meanwhile, ‘Open Innovation’ offers a complementary model, championing a departure from insular corporate research and development approaches. Instead, it advocates for the amalgamation of external insights, be they from academia, startups, or independent innovators, into the innovation process. This synergistic approach addresses the often-criticized inertia inherent in large tech monopolies, promoting a more dynamic and collaborative innovation ecosystem.
Both these paradigms, however, necessitate a significant cultural shift within organizations, demanding a more flexible, adaptive, and outward-looking ethos to truly harness their potential in countering the inertia often associated with tech giants.
The rise of open innovation, propelled by reduced communication costs and advancements in memory and computation capabilities, has ushered in significant changes in market dynamics and societal interactions. Unlike the traditionally centralized, firm-driven innovation models, open innovation champions a decentralized, peer-based approach that emphasizes intrinsic motivation and societal benefits.
Indeed, the literature has delved into the nature of these peer innovation communities, understanding their social structures and intricacies.
However, the repercussions of this shift towards open innovation on established and emerging firms remain inadequately explored. Current organizational and strategic theories don't fully encapsulate the nuances of community-driven innovation. Despite the transformative potential of open innovation, its influence on mainstream organizational and strategic discourses has been somewhat muted.
As we progress, it becomes imperative to develop a more comprehensive understanding of firms in this new context, addressing the interaction between traditional organizational structures and emerging community-based innovation paradigms.

Conclusion

In an evolving landscape where tasks are increasingly modular and knowledge about solutions becomes more widespread, the traditional closed systems of innovation shift towards open, community-driven models. The implications are profound: we can no longer rely solely on conventional understandings of innovation rooted in cost efficiency, control mechanisms, and external incentives.
As innovation gets embedded in a spectrum ranging from strictly internal processes to open community collaborations, our conceptualization of firms and their boundaries need revisiting. This doesn’t negate the value of traditional models, but it requires a hybrid approach where both internal and open strategies coexist.
A pivotal question arises: under what circumstances should firms toggle between these different modes of innovation? The answer, it appears, lies in understanding the nature of the product and the distribution of problem-solving knowledge.
For products that are inherently integrated and where specialized knowledge is centralized, the conventional in-house R&D model, bolstered by a strong innovation-centric culture, remains relevant. Here, innovation is typically cocooned within the firm's boundaries, spanning from distinct functional divisions to intricate, ambidextrous designs.
However, when a product can be broken down into modular components and the requisite knowledge is dispersed, the limitations of a closed innovation system become evident. In these contexts, the power dynamics of innovation are reshaped by the principles of openness, collaborative sharing, intrinsic motivation, and community engagement.
The challenge, then, for modern enterprises is to discern when to internalize and when to externalize, ensuring that they harness the best of both worlds while navigating the complex terrain of innovation.In today’s evolving and competitive landscape, the value of innovation is shifting from the traditional closed systems approach to a more open, decentralized, and community-driven approach. Paul Lalovich and Tesha Teshanovich from Agile Dynamics outline what is driving the trend, its implications for organizations, and how leaders can successfully operate at the forefront of the shift. Innovation transcends the mere conceptualization of fresh ideas; it is the actionable process of enhancing existing products or conjuring entirely new offerings. While there is a strong correlation between R&D and innovation – with the former serving as a wellspring for pioneering thoughts – the journey from groundbreaking research to practical utility can be intricate and protracted. However, it’s worth noting that innovation isn't solely tethered to structured R&D. It can spontaneously arise from sheer curiosity, a spark of inspiration, or even the simple act of refining or tweaking existing methodologies.
Firms might invest in R&D to catalyze innovation, but they can also harness external advancements – referred to as ‘spillovers’. After all, groundbreaking knowledge isn't always the exclusive domain of its creators, making external inspirations invaluable. Emerging from a robust foundation of innovation, soft power presents tangible advantages. Leaders in technology often establish benchmarks that others deem beneficial to adopt. As a result, global standards lean favorably toward those pioneers. Moreover, countries recognized for their innovative acumen become prime territories for patent filings. These innovation hubs magnetize not just domestic but international investments and capital. Perhaps the most profound testament to their soft power is the allure they hold for top-tier talents. For instance, Silicon Valley has evolved into a global nexus, drawing in exceptional minds from the realms of information, communication, and digital technologies. Such concentrations of talent can significantly influence a nation’s trade dynamics. Tech monopolies slow down innovation In the arena of global economic dominance, competition emerges as the cornerstone, propelling nations to the forefront of innovation and growth. While Chinese strategies appear to have adapted, embracing the dynamism of competitive markets, the United States stands at a crossroads. Some of its tech behemoths promote their size and market leadership as pivotal for cutting-edge innovation. Yet, it is crucial to discern the nature of this innovation and whose interests it truly serves. Does it prioritize shareholder returns, or is there a broader, national interest at play? As smaller, agile firms emerge, emphasizing true boundary-pushing innovation, one must ponder: Is the spirit of unbridled competition – a force that once fueled the American economy – being overshadowed by the looming giants? In the nuanced interplay between governmental oversight and market forces, recent actions within China's technology sector provide a captivating study of regulatory boundaries. This phenomenon, aptly termed ‘de-tycoonification’, captures a deliberate effort to harmonize enterprise innovation with centralized checks. A leading digital commerce platform in China encountered regulatory attention. The swift determination that its practices were anti-competitive, accompanied by a significant financial penalty, symbolizes a broader intent to redefine market paradigms. Prompt official communique following these events conveys a clear perspective: monopolistic behaviours can inhibit the holistic evolution of a market-based economy. This stance also emphasizes that thoughtful regulations, rather than restricting growth, might actually serve as pillars to stabilize and nurture it. The regulatory web further ensnared another major digital entity in China, underscoring the principle that technological ingenuity should operate within established ethical and legal frameworks. Such internal checks within China challenge certain dominant narratives in global tech centres. The notion that maintaining a robust market stature acts as a shield against global tech adversaries comes under scrutiny. The introspective regulatory steps within China necessitate a broader re-evaluation of such assumptions. The tech landscape today is unmistakably marked by the towering presence of Big Tech, but what underlies this dominance might point towards a concerning reduction in competitive intensity. For two decades, the profits raked in by American tech behemoths have remained unparalleled, with market valuations suggesting this trend is expected to continue, if not amplify, in the coming years. Such sustained, sky-high profitability isn't typical in a genuinely competitive market. In such a setting, rivals and newcomers usually exert downward pressures, ensuring no single entity retains an overwhelming edge for extended periods. The tech industry's trajectory further points towards a rising penchant for consolidation. This is evidenced by the substantial acquisitions of budding companies by the tech titans. Data sourced from Mergermarket underscores an uptick in acquisition activity by these colossal tech firms, particularly post-2010. The symbiotic relationship between persistent high profits and a trend toward industry concentration suggests that the tech market might be veering away from the vibrant competitive arena it once was. Cardwell’s law The tech landscape’s evolution, in its relationship with innovation, is witnessing a palpable shift in entrepreneurial motivation and vision. Historically, the fervour of pioneering something transformative, encapsulated in the ‘moonshot thinking’, drove entrepreneurs. This audacious spirit envisioned groundbreaking entities akin to the tech luminaries of the late 20th and early 21st century. Yet, today’s entrepreneurial aspirations seem more tempered. Instead of fostering ambitions of building the next revolutionary tech empire, there’s a growing inclination towards securing an acquisition by an existing tech colossus. This shift in sentiment dims the likelihood of a new tech juggernaut rising to challenge the incumbent titans. Post the era of computer-centric, web-driven, and smartphone-related innovations, a cloud of uncertainty looms over the emergence of new tech powerhouses. Notably, the promising technological domains of the upcoming decade – be it autonomous vehicles with their exorbitant R&D costs, virtual or augmented reality's significant development expenditures, the data intensity of artificial intelligence, or drones and the Internet of Things with their challenging profit margins – present formidable entry barriers. These hurdles, combined with a changing entrepreneurial landscape, cast a shadow on the future dynamism of tech innovation. Cardwell's elucidation on the patterns of technological evolution offers a poignant lens through which to view the current landscape dominated by Big Tech. Donald Stephen Lowell Cardwell’s seminal work from 1972 suggests that technological vigor within societies is not an enduring flame, but a fleeting burst of brilliance. Within the European context, as one nation's innovative energy began to wane, another would rise, ensuring a consistent relay of progress across the continent. Visualize this relay of innovation as a torch, brilliant yet intense. Historically, regions such as Northern Italy, Southern Germany, Spain, and Portugal, and later Holland, Britain, the United States, and Germany, took turns in holding this torch, leading the march of innovation. Yet, no single society clung to this leadership for extended durations. The relay ensured that as one nation's innovation diminished, another took up the mantle, propelling the collective forward. This phenomenon, coined as ‘Cardwell’s Law’ by Joel Mokyr, posits that when left in isolation, a society’s technological creativity is but a brief spark. Over time, conservatism’s stifling grip, intent on preserving existing structures of power and privilege, often curtails this innovative drive. This is where the analogy becomes particularly relevant for the Big Tech landscape. In today’s digital age, a few colossal entities dominate, much like the leading nations of old Europe. Yet, as these tech giants solidify their positions, they risk becoming victims of the very conservatism Mokyr speaks of. Instead of being conduits for continual innovation, their sheer dominance and entrenched positions could lead to a stagnation in technological creativity. As they grow in size and influence, there is an increasing tendency to preserve the status quo, which inadvertently suppresses the innovative spark found in smaller, more agile entities. Decentralization and open innovation In the contemporary milieu characterized by the overwhelming dominance of Big Tech monopolies, the paradigms of decentralized innovation and open innovation emerge as potentially transformative alternatives. The concept of distributed strategy borrows from nature, suggesting that in the same manner that organisms such as trees maximize their efficiency by creating multiple self-similar structures like leaves instead of solely relying on a single core trunk, businesses too need to shift their focus from purely scaling their core processes to nurturing multiple iterative strategies at the organizational peripheries. This can be encapsulated in the mantra of ‘Think Local, Act Global’. In essence, companies must attune to the nuanced demands and opportunities of each local market, while simultaneously integrating these learnings into a broader global strategy. This is particularly evident in industries undergoing rapid transformation; for instance, the automotive industry's evolution from merely selling cars to offering comprehensive mobility solutions, a shift that is predicted to significantly alter its revenue structure by 2035. In parallel, in our data-driven age, there is an increasing realization that the sheer volume of data is less crucial than its meaningful interpretation. Organizations need to pivot from prioritizing data accumulation to developing advanced algorithms capable of drawing insights from fragmented, patchy datasets. In the rapidly shifting landscape of today's global business environment, numerous established multinational corporations find themselves at a perplexing crossroads. The crux of their predicament stems from a foundational dilemma: how to juxtapose traditional scale-driven strategies with the emergent imperative of Distributed strategies. To dissect this conundrum, one must appreciate the inherently divergent organizational philosophies underpinning scale and distributed strategies. Transitioning from a scale-centric model to a distributed-oriented one is not merely about implementing a series of organizational modifications, no matter how profound. The shift demands a comprehensive reimagining of the organizational ethos and operational mechanics. Moreover, it is a fallacy to view these strategies as mutually exclusive. In actuality, they exist on a continuum, each holding its unique value. The challenge for modern enterprises lies in striking an optimal balance between harnessing the benefits of scale and the agility of Distributed strategies. Regrettably, the journey to this equilibrium is riddled with pitfalls, and many companies, even with their vast resources and global reach, have faltered in this endeavor. Contrary to scale-centric entities that depend on static assets, with streamlined yet inherently slower supply chains, Distributed organizations harness networks characterized by adaptability and continuous transformation. These networks are primed for swiftly addressing specific local requirements and seizing niche market prospects. Such frameworks incorporate a blend of proprietary micro-production facilities, possibly utilizing innovations like 3D printing; leasing assets from providers offering asset-on-demand services; and coordinating flexible ecosystems of regional digital collaborators. The overarching aim is twofold: continuously devise innovative solutions tailored for local clientele and escalate them to various markets with optimal speed. Distributed-oriented organizations prioritize decentralization, contrasting with the top-down hierarchies commonly seen in scale-driven entities. Within these structures, decision-making isn't confined to a centralized corporate core. Instead, considerable authority is delegated to customer-centric teams positioned away from the primary headquarters. This design fosters agility, allowing for a rapid response to localized demands and new opportunities. Some multinational corporations have observed marked improvements in their performance metrics after such decentralization. They empowered regional leaders with financial oversight, decision-making rights, streamlined communication channels to the central office, and enhanced access to market analytics. Another trend, seen in the case of an appliance industry giant, involves an even more radical shift. This entity introduced a unique organizational framework aimed at minimizing the distance between the enterprise and its customer base. In a bold move, an entire level of middle management was eliminated, redistributing power to numerous newly-formed, semi-independent, customer-aligned business segments. These units operate in synergy, linked by a unified digital platform. Further reading: Knowledge and venture capital as a driver of innovation. Meanwhile, ‘Open Innovation’ offers a complementary model, championing a departure from insular corporate research and development approaches. Instead, it advocates for the amalgamation of external insights, be they from academia, startups, or independent innovators, into the innovation process. This synergistic approach addresses the often-criticized inertia inherent in large tech monopolies, promoting a more dynamic and collaborative innovation ecosystem. Both these paradigms, however, necessitate a significant cultural shift within organizations, demanding a more flexible, adaptive, and outward-looking ethos to truly harness their potential in countering the inertia often associated with tech giants. The rise of open innovation, propelled by reduced communication costs and advancements in memory and computation capabilities, has ushered in significant changes in market dynamics and societal interactions. Unlike the traditionally centralized, firm-driven innovation models, open innovation champions a decentralized, peer-based approach that emphasizes intrinsic motivation and societal benefits. Indeed, the literature has delved into the nature of these peer innovation communities, understanding their social structures and intricacies. However, the repercussions of this shift towards open innovation on established and emerging firms remain inadequately explored. Current organizational and strategic theories don't fully encapsulate the nuances of community-driven innovation. Despite the transformative potential of open innovation, its influence on mainstream organizational and strategic discourses has been somewhat muted. As we progress, it becomes imperative to develop a more comprehensive understanding of firms in this new context, addressing the interaction between traditional organizational structures and emerging community-based innovation paradigms. Conclusion In an evolving landscape where tasks are increasingly modular and knowledge about solutions becomes more widespread, the traditional closed systems of innovation shift towards open, community-driven models. The implications are profound: we can no longer rely solely on conventional understandings of innovation rooted in cost efficiency, control mechanisms, and external incentives. As innovation gets embedded in a spectrum ranging from strictly internal processes to open community collaborations, our conceptualization of firms and their boundaries need revisiting. This doesn’t negate the value of traditional models, but it requires a hybrid approach where both internal and open strategies coexist. A pivotal question arises: under what circumstances should firms toggle between these different modes of innovation? The answer, it appears, lies in understanding the nature of the product and the distribution of problem-solving knowledge. For products that are inherently integrated and where specialized knowledge is centralized, the conventional in-house R&D model, bolstered by a strong innovation-centric culture, remains relevant. Here, innovation is typically cocooned within the firm's boundaries, spanning from distinct functional divisions to intricate, ambidextrous designs. However, when a product can be broken down into modular components and the requisite knowledge is dispersed, the limitations of a closed innovation system become evident. In these contexts, the power dynamics of innovation are reshaped by the principles of openness, collaborative sharing, intrinsic motivation, and community engagement. The challenge, then, for modern enterprises is to discern when to internalize and when to externalize, ensuring that they harness the best of both worlds while navigating the complex terrain of innovation.

Here are some ways to find online exam help for WGU certifications in CompTIA:

1. Paid Help from Hiraedu: If You're struggling to handle your comptia or any other WGU Exam or any other coursework, get help from Hiraedu and pay after the exam. Contact details for Hiraedu is: WhatsApp: +1 (213) 594-5657 OR Call: +1 727 456 9641
2. WGU Student Portal: Access study resources, practice exams, and online tutorials through the WGU student portal.
3. CompTIA Website: Visit the official CompTIA website for study guides, practice questions, and online training resources.
4. WGU Community Forum: Join the WGU community forum to connect with fellow students, ask questions, and share resources.
5. Online Study Groups: Search for online study groups on platforms like Facebook, Reddit, or Discord.
6. Practice Exam Websites: Utilize websites like Pluralsight, Udemy, or Exam-Labs for practice exams and study materials.
7. Tutoring Services: Consider hiring a tutor or using online tutoring services like Chegg or TutorMe.
8. WGU Mentorship Program: Take advantage of WGU's mentorship program, which pairs you with an experienced professional for guidance and support.
9. Online Course Providers: Enroll in online courses from providers like Coursera, edX, or LinkedIn Learning to supplement your studies.
10. Study Guides and Resources: Explore websites like Professor Messer, CBT Nuggets, or ITProTV for study guides, videos, and practice questions.
11. WGU Library Resources: Utilize the WGU library's online resources, including e-books, articles, and research databases.

Remember, always follow WGU's academic integrity policies and guidelines when seeking online exam help. Good luck with your studies!
What are your Thoughts! Write in comments and ask for help if needed
Suggest more topic Ideas
Join this subreddit to help us grow!

Hi everyone, recently, I have been using GPT-4 a lot to improve my level in SQL, more precisely in terms of querying an existent database, not in creating database from scratch or architecturing it.
Indeed, this gem is very good for generating exercises to push my limits and improve my querying level.
However, recently I haven't been able to find the perfect prompt to encourage GPT to provide me with exercises related to what I'm asking for.
It's mind blowing how he struggles to deliver exactly what I want and he seems to be missing the point.
What I want ChatGPT to do is give me an exercise every time I ask for it. This exercise should push me to use the different functions, clauses, joins, mathematical operations, that is to say everything that is possible to query using SQL. To put it simply, I must be able to provide a complete report, around a single theme, where each step or instruction leads naturally to a next one and this for each exercise with a completely different situation from the previous one.
Obviously, I don't want it to force me to use all the principles at the same time in a single query to answer the exercise. I prefer that he pushes me to use a few at the same time.
Here is examples of typical exercise that I would like to solve and which I thought about 30 minutes ago :
Example 1 :

1.Calculate the turnover of companies for each region. 2.Identify regions that generated over 2 million in revenue. 3.List the top-revenue-generating company within each region that generated over 2 million in revenue. 4.Highlight the highest revenue-generating sale for each of the top company by region that generated over 2 million in revenue. 

Example 2 :

1.Gather all book sales that occurred in the last 3 months. 2.Calculate the number of sales for each book within this 3-month period and sort the results by the highest sales count. 3.Determine the total revenue generated by each book from the sales made in the last 3 months. 4.Filter out books that contributed less than 20% of the total revenue. 5.Identify the book with the highest sales count in the last 3 months. Identify the book that generated the most revenue in the last 3 months. Identify the book with the least sale count in the last three months. 

Example 3 :
1.Return the unique IDs and addresses for all stores controlled by our video game company. 2. Return the quantity of each video game in stock for each store. 3. Calculate the actual stock for each video game based on the sales that occurred in each store. 4.Identify videogames with stocks below the safety stock (threshold). 5.Identify stores that have more than three items below the safety stock. 6.Identify stores that have between 3 and 5 items below the threshold as "Not a priority", between 6 and 9 items as "Priority", between 10 and 13 as "Critic", and more than 14 as "Maximum priority"
As you can see, these types of exercises would push me to use as many SQL functions and clauses as possible while at the same time practicing with joins and CTE. When I ask ChatGPT to do these kind of exercices, it goes insane and send me the same exercice with one or two minor differences and keep giving the same type of exercices with a slightly different situation.
I don't wanna give up but it's almost as if I won't find the good prompt that would allow ChatGPT to give me these kind of exercices around a unique theme, a unique situation that would push me to generate a large report based on logical and linked instructions. Because when I ask GPT to give me exercises to train, here is how it looks :
Example of SQL exercise gave by ChatGPT
What it does is separate the instructions, and there is little link between them. It feels strange, and I can't see how it will help me train CTE and have a better grasp of JOINS. This is not the type of exercise and directions I am looking for. I'm not sure how to explain it, but I'm hoping someone would understand. I am confident that if I could create an appropriate prompt, it would provide me with the activities I am looking for.

I was reading through some job descriptions recently and was interested to learn that G7 is the starting point for people who have done one of the Civil Service accelerator courses - fast stream, TSP, training contracts. This surprised me. Not because I don't think it's fair wage for those skilled workers - arguably the Civil Service still underpays, especially for people like tech, tax and legal specialists - but because I'd got it into my head that G7 was a really quite lofty managerial grade, a sort of lifetime goal that is worked up to slowly and over a long period of time for a lot of people. This perception is doubtless influenced by my own background in Operations, where a G7 is someone responsible for whole regions of offices and with hundreds of people beneath them, as compared to fields like Policy where you can be a G7 with no line management.
I'd seen G7 as something of the pinnacle of the Civil Service for people who didn't want to do ministerial work in Whitehall or manage entire departments, but realising how many G7 roles seem to go to people in their mid 20s or so, because they have the right degree background (I say that with no disparagement - I wish I'd had my head screwed on enough to do a more vocational degree lol) and a couple of years in the CS under their belts has made me question this a bit. Is G7 a really substantive role for a graduate? What sort of achievement level does it represent compared to say the private sector? Can you compare, or are the differences between sectors and indeed even between different CS areas e.g. Digital vs Ops so different that it's meaningless? It seems that in law G7 is actually quite a junior grade, whereas in Ops it's nearly the end of the line.

A venture builder differs from other capital funds in that it depends mainly on the quality and dynamism of its networks (INSEAD, 2018). It means that a venture builder must find out which the best resource combination for creating the most explosive outcomes for it to gain market greater share faster than its rivals.

A venture builder differs from other capital funds in that it depends mainly on the quality and dynamism of its networks (INSEAD, 2018). It means that a venture builder must find out which the best resource combination for creating the most explosive outcomes for it to gain market greater share faster than its rivals.
Corporations tend to use VB to reduce the chances of negative black swan exposure while raising their positive black swan exposure (Thng, 2019). According to conventional knowledge, business enterprises’ systems, structures, and procedures focus more on delivery and performance than on change and innovation (de Alvarenga et al., 2019). Firms must pursue the former to succeed in today’s competition, but they are likely to jeopardize their future well-being if they overlook the latter. Many companies have tried versatile structures or techniques like open innovation to balance effectiveness and creativity. Among these approaches, establishing incubator groups to create relationships with emerging start-up enterprises is a significant contemporary method (Massiera, 2021). The logic behind it is straightforward: VBs tap into new business models and talent pools while also transforming their own corporate cultures in return for helping new ventures deal with the risk of newness and evolve into more stable organizations (Cryptix, 2022). The venture builder environment is significant because they attempt to improve new venture success rates.

Goals and purpose of Venture BuilderGoals and purpose of Venture Builder

A Venture Builder is similar to a fast-paced tech startup, where its product is the venture, the prototype is the business model, and deliverables means perfect and timely deployment.
Venture investors have a clear edge over firms that are leveraged or rely on grants for financing; it’s a possible solution to the funding gap that has been a challenge for early-stage companies (Massiera, 2021). Any start-up owned by the Venture Builder will almost certainly have some equity taken. Still, the start-up has the potential to accelerate in its early stages with the installation of shared services, expertise, and salary (Tkalich et al., 2021). It becomes a win-win situation for both parties, which boosts their chances of success. Venture builders either hire professionals or rely on extensive expertise and commercial experience. They exchanged technical experience with competent developers who can produce swiftly with the correct frameworks and assistance, as well as high-quality code (Tkalich et al., 2021). Even with a collection of proprietary technology that can be used to cut development time even more.
Over the past decade, many corporate innovation laboratories have sprung up. Cross-functional cooperation involving intrapreneurs in these laboratories helps companies come up with fresh ideas and concepts. On the other hand, these concepts are usually executed as startup priorities and get greater attention from the venture builders. Consequently, rather than forging new ground, venture builders often focus on boosting this young business. Meanwhile, corporate initiatives are designed to achieve mid to long-term goals. This eliminates the need for complicated integration concerns. With abundant resources, the venture builders may settle on innovative decisions at startup without facing the constraints of the corporate hierarchy. This results in quicker returns on investment and a better competitive edge for the startups. The startups are, thus, charged with exploring radical ideas and business models that address new consumer requirements, allowing the venture builder to diversify its risks of disruption.

The Distinction Between Incubators and Accelerators

Although each business is similar, its methods and target markets differ. Accelerators are short-term programs that target a wide range of start-ups, from pre-seed through scale-ups. Incubators are a kind of start-up help firm that is broader (Cryptix, 2022). Venture builders concentrate on bringing together teams and forming a group of start-ups simultaneously as part of a lengthier program that connects them to their network. Unfortunately, the phrase “venture builder” has only recently gained popularity in the entrepreneurial sector. “Accelerator” is a more often used word, yet it is still understudied. The words venture builder, accelerator, and incubator tend to be used interchangeably to gather as much information as possible, with the distinctions noted previously taken into account.
Because venture capital companies are not operating businesses, they are unique. They put their money into potential teams and company concepts that match their requirements. Venture Builders, however, are heavily engaged in day-to-day operations management (Cryptix, 2022). When a Venture Builder has shares in a firm, it came up with the concept and put in a lot of work to build it, not because it contributed funds. It is also apparent that many Venture Builders are setting up funds to help with funding (Gerhardt et al., 2021). Contrary to the case of incubators and accelerators, Venture Builders find company ideas from within their networks and allocate internal teams to initiate the building from the bottom up. The link between a Venture Builder and its ventures is long-term; it is heavily engaged with the businesses it creates until they depart.

Process of creating a Venture Builder

Venture studios create businesses by developing new concepts and allocating teams to those with commercial potential (Doyle, 2021). Any dangerous assumptions that must be true for your idea to have any potential are addressed after the business concept has been fully understood. The first step is to determine whether or not your target clients have issues that need to be addressed and, if so, whether or not your concept offers the appropriate answers. After these concepts have been verified and proven, they are backed up by resources to create a minimum viable product (INSEAD, 2018). Building a team is a crucial aspect of the process for smart individuals who want to achieve big things. While some venture builders fund the design process first, others have created a strong reputation that allows them to seek funds before the ideas are specified. If the feasibility is confirmed at this time, the studio works on growing the new venture before attempting to depart. This business model cycle is repeated several times, each time resulting in creating a new venture (Garcia-Luengo, 2017). It is anticipated that if an idea fails, resources will be shifted, or the business case will be abandoned outright.

Conclusion

The Venture Builder approach is becoming more popular. It is arguable if venture capital is a superior model. While each has its benefits, venture building is more facilitating and advantageous for a potential early-stage start-up firm, particularly one that has yet to support itself with working capital. It is indisputable that venture building is modernizing and deconstructing a process that was once somewhat of an art than a science, and equipping organizations and people by stressing the systematic use of human capital to create unique opportunities from the bottom up, thus boosting the possibilities of developing and growing successful companies. It is no longer a single personality that drives the company; instead it is the use of established procedures based on successful case studies, paired with the appropriate team and deployment at the right time that has enabled tales to be told.
References
Cryptix. (2022). The difference between Incubator, Accelerator and Venture Builder. Retrieved from https://cryptix.ag/blog/the-difference-between-incubator-accelerator-and-venture-builde
de Alvarenga, R., Junior, O. C., & Zeny, G. C. (2019). Venture Building & Startup Studios versus Acceleration Programs-Conceptual & Performance Differences. In . ISPIM Conference Proceedings (pp. 1-14). The International Society for Professional Innovation Management.
Doyle, M. (2021, March 15). The Venture Studio Business Model Explained. Retrieved from https://theworldwecreate.net/insights/the-venture-studio-business-model-explained
Garcia-Luengo, J. (2017, Aug 29). Venture Building, a new model for entrepreneurship and innovation. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/venture-building-new-model-entrepreneurship-jorge-garc%C3%ADa-luengo/
Gerhardt, V., Santos, J. D., Rubin, E., Neuenfeldt, A., & Mairesse Siluk, J. C. (2021). Stakeholders´ Perception to Characterize the Start-ups Success. Journal of technology management & innovation, 16(1), 38-50.
INSEAD. (2018). The Emerging Role of Venture Builders in EarlyStage Venture Funding. Retrieved from chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.insead.edu/sites/default/files/assets/dept/centres/gpei/docs/insead-student-emerging-role-of-venture-builders-oct-2018.pdf
Massi, M., Shah, P., Eckel, J., & Loughridge, J. (2022, Jan 12). The Venture Builder Strategy for Principal Investors. Retrieved from https://www.bcg.com/publications/2022/the-venture-builders-strategy-for-principal-investors
Massiera, P. (2021). Teaching business models through student consulting projects. Journal of Business Models, 9(3), 25-38.
Thng, P. (2019, Oct). Successful venture building: What matters! An empirical Successful venture building: What matters! An empirical examination of effective incubation practices . Retrieved from Singapore Management University Singapore Management University : https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1253&context=etd_coll
Tkalich, A., Moe, N. B., & Ulfsnes, R. (2021). Making Internal Software Startups Work: How to Innovate Like a Venture Builder? International Conference on Software Business (pp. 152-167). Springer.
Authors

Paul Lalovich

Organizational Effectiveness and Strategy Execution Practice

Tesha Teshanovich

Organizational Effectiveness and Strategy Execution Practice

So I've been doing research, and I can't seem to find a 100% clear answer. I have a question. Is it possible to get a level 1 Buzzwole in Sword and Shield?
The reason is...I know that Pokemon Go has the function to where if you get one with low enough CP, it could potentially come in as a level 1 (Seemingly unlikely, but possible). So I guess inadvertently, that answers my question because you could transfer it through Pokemon Home. I'm guessing this is why all of the Pokemon Sites have a Learnset for him that starts at Level 1 (even on Pokemon Sword and Shield). But I also know that for Genning Pokemon (at least from what I've heard)....you can't gen this same effect (AKA, you can't get a LVL 1 Buzzwole) because it's "goes against the coding of the game." Again, I don't know, this is just what I've gathered from the Internet.
So I guess I'm here trying to see if I can get a straight answer, and possibly any offers if it is. I'm hoping to play an All bug playthrough with some Pokemon I typically don't get to use until late in the game, And I'd love Buzzwole to be one of those.
Note: My apologies if this doesn't relate to Pokemon Home enough, But I'm imagining that Pokemon Home is how I'm going to make this work.
Thanks

Overview

1. Kennedy on the state of our union (9 min)
2. 2024 candidate comparison chart
3. Overview of Kennedy (3 min)
4. Fixing huge issues Biden & Trump don't fix (1 min)
5. Policies on Kennedy's website
6. Who is Bobby Kennedy? (30 min)
7. Kennedy's Record vs Biden's Record vs Trump's Record
8. A Hero Of The Planet
9. Kennedy's podcasts
10. Kennedy's books

Countering common smears

1. Kennedy isn't a grifter, or a plant to help Trump or Biden; Kennedy is a legitimate candidate who can win
2. Kennedy isn't anti-vax
3. Kennedy isn't a conspiracy theorist
4. Kennedy fully recovered from the brain worm incident over a decade ago and doesn't have cognitive issues
5. Kennedy isn't a spoiler
6. Kennedy isn't antisemitic and didn't claim covid-19 was an ethnically targeted bioweapon
7. Kennedy didn't claim atrazine causes transgenderism
8. Kennedy respects the 2nd amendment and isn't going to take people's guns away
9. Kennedy isn't authoritarian and didn't say climate change deniers should be jailed
10. Kennedy isn't responsible for the measles outbreak in Samoa
11. Kennedy has a solid stance on abortion that most Americans would agree with
12. Kennedy wants the right kind of environmentalism that both sides can agree on, not authoritarian scams
13. Kennedy cares about both Israelis and Palestinians and wants peace

Evidence supporting counter-narrative claims

1. Science supports Kennedy's claims about Big Pharma corrupting our scientific system
2. Science supports Kennedy's claims on Covid, vaccines, EMFs, glyphosate, microplastics, and more
3. Science supports Kennedy's mercury-related claims
4. Science supports Kennedy's fluoride-related claims
5. Science supports Kennedy's Ivermectin-related claims
6. Science supports Kennedy's frog-related claims
7. Science supports Kennedy's claims about Wifi, 5G, and radiofrequency radiation
8. Science supports Kennedy's claims about syringe-injectable electronics
9. Science supports Kennedy's claims regarding different populations potentially having different levels of susceptibility to Covid
10. Kennedy's claims about NATO and Ukraine are supported by strong evidence
11. Kennedy stands up to the corrupt establishment

Short-form content

1. The truth about Ukraine (3 min)
2. Inflation, war, and banks (2 min)
3. Rising above partisanship and the duopoly (4 min)
4. Making housing affordable (3 min)
5. Not a conspiracy theorist 1 (5 min)
6. Not a conspiracy theorist 2 (3 min)
7. Calling out Fed, MIC, Oil, Pharma, CIA (2 min)
8. Persuasive memes
9. Truth to power and fighting for freedom (3 min)
10. Chronic disease (3 min)
11. Fighting factory farming corruption (3 min)
12. Making our government tell the truth (3 min)
13. Making our farms and food healthy (1 min)
14. The right kind of environmentalism (4 min)
15. Kennedy vs Biden for democracy comparison
16. Kennedy can win 1 (1 min)
17. Kennedy can win 2 (3 min)
18. Draining the swamp (2 min)
19. The truth about Trump's swamp record (2 min)
20. Fighting the great reset (2 min)
21. Mercury in vaccines (15 min)
22. Fighting against totalitarianism (13 min)
23. History lesson on Ukraine (4 min)
24. Vaccines: science vs orthodoxy (10 min)
25. Kennedy's covid record vs the duopoly's (4 min)
26. Kennedy can beat Donald Trump in 2024, Biden can't
27. Kennedy vs Trump on draining the swamp
28. Looking at vaccine science vs trusting Bill Gates (2 min)
29. Pro vaccine safety testing, not anti-vax (13 min)
30. Neither right nor left: what we stand for (2 min)

Hi everyone, recently, I have been using GPT-4 a lot to improve my level in SQL, more precisely in terms of querying an existent database, not in creating database from scratch or architecturing it.
Indeed, this gem is very good for generating exercises to push my limits and improve my querying level.
However, recently I haven't been able to find the perfect prompt to encourage GPT to provide me with exercises related to what I'm asking for.
It's mind blowing how he struggles to deliver exactly what I want and he seems to be missing the point.
What I want ChatGPT to do is give me an exercise every time I ask for it. This exercise should push me to use the different functions, clauses, joins, mathematical operations, that is to say everything that is possible to query using SQL. To put it simply, I must be able to provide a complete report, around a single theme, where each step or instruction leads naturally to a next one and this for each exercise with a completely different situation from the previous one.
Obviously, I don't want it to force me to use all the principles at the same time in a single query to answer the exercise. I prefer that he pushes me to use a few at the same time.
Here is examples of typical exercise that I would like to solve and which I thought about 30 minutes ago :
Example 1 :

1.Calculate the turnover of companies for each region. 2.Identify regions that generated over 2 million in revenue. 3.List the top-revenue-generating company within each region that generated over 2 million in revenue. 4.Highlight the highest revenue-generating sale for each of the top company by region that generated over 2 million in revenue. 

Example 2 :

1.Gather all book sales that occurred in the last 3 months. 2.Calculate the number of sales for each book within this 3-month period and sort the results by the highest sales count. 3.Determine the total revenue generated by each book from the sales made in the last 3 months. 4.Filter out books that contributed less than 20% of the total revenue. 5.Identify the book with the highest sales count in the last 3 months. Identify the book that generated the most revenue in the last 3 months. Identify the book with the least sale count in the last three months. 

Example 3 :
1.Return the unique IDs and addresses for all stores controlled by our video game company. 2. Return the quantity of each video game in stock for each store. 3. Calculate the actual stock for each video game based on the sales that occurred in each store. 4.Identify videogames with stocks below the safety stock (threshold). 5.Identify stores that have more than three items below the safety stock. 6.Identify stores that have between 3 and 5 items below the threshold as "Not a priority", between 6 and 9 items as "Priority", between 10 and 13 as "Critic", and more than 14 as "Maximum priority"
As you can see, these types of exercises would push me to use as many SQL functions and clauses as possible while at the same time practicing with joins and CTE. When I ask ChatGPT to do these kind of exercices, it goes insane and send me the same exercice with one or two minor differences and keep giving the same type of exercices with a slightly different situation.
I don't wanna give up but it's almost as if I won't find the good prompt that would allow ChatGPT to give me these kind of exercices around a unique theme, a unique situation that would push me to generate a large report based on logical and linked instructions. Because when I ask GPT to give me exercises to train, here is how it looks :
Example of SQL exercise gave by ChatGPT
What it does is separate the instructions, and there is little link between them. It feels strange, and I can't see how it will help me train CTE and have a better grasp of JOINS. This is not the type of exercise and directions I am looking for. I'm not sure how to explain it, but I'm hoping someone would understand. I am confident that if I could create an appropriate prompt, it would provide me with the activities I am looking for.

Rapid technological development and global big tech have contributed to the widening of the gap between rich and developing countries. Social media networks, fintech, and the internet as a whole have become powerful tools for collecting and using personal and business data. It is no secret that big tech has been collecting, using, and trading personal data without people’s consent solidifying the competitive advantage.Rapid technological development and global big tech have contributed to the widening of the gap between rich and developing countries. Social media networks, fintech, and the internet as a whole have become powerful tools for collecting and using personal and business data. It is no secret that big tech has been collecting, using, and trading personal data without people’s consent solidifying the competitive advantage.

Prometheus, teacher in every art, brought the fire that hath proved to mortals a means to mighty ends.
The data collected has been used to target users with ads and commercial messages for profit. As a result, these digital technologies have been fueling Digital Colonialism, where the rich are fortifying their financial dominance. This phenomenon provides large technological companies from the West a tool for controlling emerging markets and extracting profits and has caused the stagnation of underdeveloped nations.
Unarguably, big tech has an influence over the policies that govern how they do business. In other words, they use their power and influence to set the business standards and rules however it suits their interests. Consequently, technology giants often venture into other industries that were initially dominated by state and local organizations. Often it is the case that governmental and local private organizations cannot compete with large-scale technological companies due to the sheer volume of their resources (Coleman, 2019).
Large, monopolistic companies use their limitless resources to dominate underdeveloped markets. A good example is Uber, which has been running local taxi services out of business wherever they set their operations, like in South Africa. Furthermore, the advertisement and marketing sectors have seen this in action too, as Facebook and Google have brought local media in developing countries on the verge of extinction (Kwet, 2019).

What is Technology Sovereignty?

Technology sovereignty is a country’s ability to develop and implement technology crucial for its technological independence and welfare. It also includes alternative ways of acquiring technology, such as provisioning it from other nations without causing dependence or violating the country’s freedom (Crespi et al., 2021). For a nation to achieve technology independence, it must be able to avoid unilateral dependency, as we see in the case of developing countries where large-scale technology corporations entirely control the infrastructure. In essence, technology sovereignty is reached through independent technological and scientific development, or by adopting external technological solutions but without developing a dependent relationship with the external partner.
Often, the term “technology sovereignty” is used interchangeably with data sovereignty and information sovereignty, in which case the focus is on the country’s ability to provide the IT infrastructure and technology to fulfill the nations hosting interests, needs, and policies (Coleman, 2019). However, no single nation can be entirely self-reliant when it comes to IT, and technology sovereignty goes beyond technological autonomy that allows the adoption of new technology without dependence (Crespi et al., 2021).

Technology Sovereignty and Innovation Sovereignty

Technology sovereignty and innovation sovereignty are directly related, with the former serving as a bridge to the latter. To achieve short and long-term economic goals, innovation sovereignty involves developing technologies at the local level (Crespi et al., 2021). Both technology and innovation sovereignty are reached by generating relevant scientific and technological knowledge. It is important to note that scientific and technological knowledge does not have any real impact on the economy if there are no resources and prerequisites, such as a regulatory framework and infrastructure, for its application (Edler et al., 2021).
Innovation sovereignty serves to guarantee that the technologies employed in a society do not lead to dependence on monopolistic foreign companies. As a product of technology sovereignty, innovation sovereignty ensures that a country can satisfy its long-term technological requirements with local experts.What is Technology Sovereignty? Technology sovereignty is a country’s ability to develop and implement technology crucial for its technological independence and welfare. It also includes alternative ways of acquiring technology, such as provisioning it from other nations without causing dependence or violating the country’s freedom (Crespi et al., 2021). For a nation to achieve technology independence, it must be able to avoid unilateral dependency, as we see in the case of developing countries where large-scale technology corporations entirely control the infrastructure. In essence, technology sovereignty is reached through independent technological and scientific development, or by adopting external technological solutions but without developing a dependent relationship with the external partner. Often, the term “technology sovereignty” is used interchangeably with data sovereignty and information sovereignty, in which case the focus is on the country’s ability to provide the IT infrastructure and technology to fulfill the nations hosting interests, needs, and policies (Coleman, 2019). However, no single nation can be entirely self-reliant when it comes to IT, and technology sovereignty goes beyond technological autonomy that allows the adoption of new technology without dependence (Crespi et al., 2021). Technology Sovereignty and Innovation Sovereignty Technology sovereignty and innovation sovereignty are directly related, with the former serving as a bridge to the latter. To achieve short and long-term economic goals, innovation sovereignty involves developing technologies at the local level (Crespi et al., 2021). Both technology and innovation sovereignty are reached by generating relevant scientific and technological knowledge. It is important to note that scientific and technological knowledge does not have any real impact on the economy if there are no resources and prerequisites, such as a regulatory framework and infrastructure, for its application (Edler et al., 2021). Innovation sovereignty serves to guarantee that the technologies employed in a society do not lead to dependence on monopolistic foreign companies. As a product of technology sovereignty, innovation sovereignty ensures that a country can satisfy its long-term technological requirements with local experts.

Technology Sovereignty and Economic Sovereignty

Adequate infrastructure and the ability to innovate create a favorable environment in which technology sovereignty may lead to economic sovereignty. Economic sovereignty refers to the ability of a country or a country bloc to benefit from independent ventures and partnerships with similar entities without being dependent on any of them (Crespi et al., 2021). Technology sovereignty helps establish innovation independence and eventually results in economic sovereignty, which stems from the need to provide free access to important resources, financing, critical technologies, and data (Edler et al., 2021). Technology sovereignty aims to help the domestic industry by enhancing innovation locally, which makes it intrinsically nationalistic (or regional) in nature. By stimulating innovation, technology sovereignty becomes necessary for achieving development priorities.

How Can Developing Nations Attain Technology Sovereignty

Essential technologies for technology sovereignty are defined using theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Correctly understanding the most critical aspects of technology sovereignty as they relate to technology requires expertise in analysis and relevant procedures (Edler et al., 2020). The initial stage in this process is deciding on the essential skills and knowledge to obtain. This stage is followed by researching the impact of the selected technology on society and the economy and, finally, providing the technology to the local community.
Technological alternatives help strengthen technological independence. Determining the economic viability of a particular alternative helps define its role as an alternative. (Edler et al., 2021). It is, nevertheless, critical to guarantee that technological options are accessible and can be built in developing nations. Technology sovereignty requires creating young talents and obtaining the necessary resources. To produce appropriate technologies in today’s volatile environment, developing nations need to acquire science and technology know-how by utilizing complex R&I instruments and creating knowledge carrier groups (Edler et al., 2020). They can achieve this by simplifying and reforming the curriculum at the relevant institutions of higher education (BCSD, 2020). For instance, the curriculums should be designed to promote research in agriculture tech and data analytics. University education and training must have clear strategies to eliminate knowledge gaps that slow down alternative technology innovation in developing nations.
Nonetheless, the resources and infrastructure necessary for alternative technologies to become a reality are almost always an unsurmountable obstacle for emerging economies. This is often due to the sheer scope of the research that needs to be performed and the need for more equipment and raw materials to develop and test new technologies (Edler et al., 2020). Consequently, to tackle these obstacles, countries and their educational institutions need to choose a narrower field to focus on. Research collaboration and information exchange regarding essential knowledge helps access the necessary technology and prevents unilateral dependencies.
Emerging nations must foster a technology culture and support scientific and technical knowledge throughout the educational system. Children must be allowed to interact with digital technology and develop capabilities while they are very young. For example, using the relevant technology to enable internet access for children in school and at home is a strategy that will improve the quality of learning (BCSD, 2020). To achieve this goal, teachers, researchers, local and state governments, and other stakeholders need to show intent to work together. The path of attaining technology sovereignty for emerging nations starts with understanding the importance of the right approach to technology.Technology Sovereignty and Economic Sovereignty Adequate infrastructure and the ability to innovate create a favorable environment in which technology sovereignty may lead to economic sovereignty. Economic sovereignty refers to the ability of a country or a country bloc to benefit from independent ventures and partnerships with similar entities without being dependent on any of them (Crespi et al., 2021). Technology sovereignty helps establish innovation independence and eventually results in economic sovereignty, which stems from the need to provide free access to important resources, financing, critical technologies, and data (Edler et al., 2021). Technology sovereignty aims to help the domestic industry by enhancing innovation locally, which makes it intrinsically nationalistic (or regional) in nature. By stimulating innovation, technology sovereignty becomes necessary for achieving development priorities. How Can Developing Nations Attain Technology Sovereignty Essential technologies for technology sovereignty are defined using theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Correctly understanding the most critical aspects of technology sovereignty as they relate to technology requires expertise in analysis and relevant procedures (Edler et al., 2020). The initial stage in this process is deciding on the essential skills and knowledge to obtain. This stage is followed by researching the impact of the selected technology on society and the economy and, finally, providing the technology to the local community. Technological alternatives help strengthen technological independence. Determining the economic viability of a particular alternative helps define its role as an alternative. (Edler et al., 2021). It is, nevertheless, critical to guarantee that technological options are accessible and can be built in developing nations. Technology sovereignty requires creating young talents and obtaining the necessary resources. To produce appropriate technologies in today’s volatile environment, developing nations need to acquire science and technology know-how by utilizing complex R&I instruments and creating knowledge carrier groups (Edler et al., 2020). They can achieve this by simplifying and reforming the curriculum at the relevant institutions of higher education (BCSD, 2020). For instance, the curriculums should be designed to promote research in agriculture tech and data analytics. University education and training must have clear strategies to eliminate knowledge gaps that slow down alternative technology innovation in developing nations. Nonetheless, the resources and infrastructure necessary for alternative technologies to become a reality are almost always an unsurmountable obstacle for emerging economies. This is often due to the sheer scope of the research that needs to be performed and the need for more equipment and raw materials to develop and test new technologies (Edler et al., 2020). Consequently, to tackle these obstacles, countries and their educational institutions need to choose a narrower field to focus on. Research collaboration and information exchange regarding essential knowledge helps access the necessary technology and prevents unilateral dependencies. Emerging nations must foster a technology culture and support scientific and technical knowledge throughout the educational system. Children must be allowed to interact with digital technology and develop capabilities while they are very young. For example, using the relevant technology to enable internet access for children in school and at home is a strategy that will improve the quality of learning (BCSD, 2020). To achieve this goal, teachers, researchers, local and state governments, and other stakeholders need to show intent to work together. The path of attaining technology sovereignty for emerging nations starts with understanding the importance of the right approach to technology.

References

Coleman, D. (2019). Digital colonialism: The 21st century scramble for Africa through the extraction and control of user data and the limitations of data protection laws. Mich. J. Race & L., 24, 417. https://doi.org/10.36643/mjrl.24.2.digital
Crespi, F., Caravella, S., Menghini, M., & Salvatori, C. (2021). European Technological Sovereignty: An emerging framework for policy strategy. Intereconomics, 56(6), 348-354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-021-1013-6
Kwet, M. (2019, March 13). Digital Colonialism is Threatening the Global South. Aljazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/3/13/digital-colonialism-is-threatening-the-global-south
Edler, J. Blind, K. Frietsch, R. Kimpeler, S. Kroll, H. Lerch, C. Reiss, T. Roth, F. Schubert, T. Schuler, J. & Walz, R. (2020). Technology Sovereignty – From Demand to Concept. Fraunhofer ISI Discussion Papers-Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis.
Edler, J., Blind, K., Kroll, H., & Schubert, T. (2021). Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy: Defining rationales, ends and means (No. 70). Fraunhofer ISI Discussion Papers-Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis.
Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development (BCSD). (2020). The Digital Transformation of Education: Connecting Schools Empowering Learners. International Telecommunication Union.
Authors

Paul Lalovich

Organizational Effectiveness and Strategy Execution Practice

Tesha Teshanovich

Organizational Effectiveness and Strategy Execution Practice

Hi everyone, recently, I have been using GPT-4 a lot to improve my level in SQL, more precisely in terms of querying an existent database, not in creating database from scratch or architecturing it.
Indeed, this gem is very good for generating exercises to push my limits and improve my querying level.
However, recently I haven't been able to find the perfect prompt to encourage GPT to provide me with exercises related to what I'm asking for.
It's mind blowing how he struggles to deliver exactly what I want and he seems to be missing the point.
What I want ChatGPT to do is give me an exercise every time I ask for it. This exercise should push me to use the different functions, clauses, joins, mathematical operations, that is to say everything that is possible to query using SQL. To put it simply, I must be able to provide a complete report, around a single theme, where each step or instruction leads naturally to a next one and this for each exercise with a completely different situation from the previous one.
Obviously, I don't want it to force me to use all the principles at the same time in a single query to answer the exercise. I prefer that he pushes me to use a few at the same time.
Here is examples of typical exercise that I would like to solve and which I thought about 30 minutes ago :
Example 1 :

1.Calculate the turnover of companies for each region. 2.Identify regions that generated over 2 million in revenue. 3.List the top-revenue-generating company within each region that generated over 2 million in revenue. 4.Highlight the highest revenue-generating sale for each of the top company by region that generated over 2 million in revenue. 

Example 2 :

1.Gather all book sales that occurred in the last 3 months. 2.Calculate the number of sales for each book within this 3-month period and sort the results by the highest sales count. 3.Determine the total revenue generated by each book from the sales made in the last 3 months. 4.Filter out books that contributed less than 20% of the total revenue. 5.Identify the book with the highest sales count in the last 3 months. Identify the book that generated the most revenue in the last 3 months. Identify the book with the least sale count in the last three months. 

Example 3 :
1.Return the unique IDs and addresses for all stores controlled by our video game company. 2. Return the quantity of each video game in stock for each store. 3. Calculate the actual stock for each video game based on the sales that occurred in each store. 4.Identify videogames with stocks below the safety stock (threshold). 5.Identify stores that have more than three items below the safety stock. 6.Identify stores that have between 3 and 5 items below the threshold as "Not a priority", between 6 and 9 items as "Priority", between 10 and 13 as "Critic", and more than 14 as "Maximum priority"
As you can see, these types of exercises would push me to use as many SQL functions and clauses as possible while at the same time practicing with joins and CTE. When I ask ChatGPT to do these kind of exercices, it goes insane and send me the same exercice with one or two minor differences and keep giving the same type of exercices with a slightly different situation.
I don't wanna give up but it's almost as if I won't find the good prompt that would allow ChatGPT to give me these kind of exercices around a unique theme, a unique situation that would push me to generate a large report based on logical and linked instructions. Because when I ask GPT to give me exercises to train, here is how it looks :
Example of SQL exercise gave by ChatGPT
What it does is separate the instructions, and there is little link between them. It feels strange, and I can't see how it will help me train CTE and have a better grasp of JOINS. This is not the type of exercise and directions I am looking for. I'm not sure how to explain it, but I'm hoping someone would understand. I am confident that if I could create an appropriate prompt, it would provide me with the activities I am looking for.

I think I know the answer but going to ask just in case.
Can the Alchemist professional (Four Against The Abyss) create 4 of the same potion for each of my adventures?
I.e. I would like to create a Garlic poultice for each character. I am guessing I can only create 1 or create 3 if I don't use any other proffessionals

37 F, UK (England), height 172cm, weight IDK I don’t/won’t weigh myself due to eating disorder but I am within a low-end healthy BMI, non drinker, trivial smoker (~1 a week), no illicit drug use, Caucasian
Current health conditions : hidradenitis suppurativa (only recently diagnosed) Hurley scale 2 if that means much; low LVEF/T wave abnormality/heart rhythm issues; osteoarthritis of lower spine (severe); post-operative arthritis of left ankle following major fracture in 2022 (it’s now mostly scaffolding in that ankle rather than bone); major depressive disorder; restrictive eating disorder.
Additional : extreme vitamin D deficiency + ferritin deficiency
Previous : breast cancer +++ grade 3 (2019); heart ischemia due to severe anorexia nervosa (2020)
Meds : Butec 20mg patch; Amitriptyline; Alprazolam; Zolpidem; Lymecycline; Ramipril (currently stopped due to incident below); Promethazine; Oramorph; Celecoxib; Colecalciferol; ferrous sulphate; probably others I can’t remember at this point
TLDR : Sepsis, extremely low BP (why?) and heart stopped during the surgery to remove source of infection, no idea what they did in theatre to start it, they mentioned some kind of medication. Concerned about what impact this will have on me going forward.
At 37, not obese or overweight, very casual smoker (less than 1 a week), Caucasian etc - i.e not hitting any of the normal criteria or profile for people to get hidradenitis suppurativa (it literally started out of nowhere in Feb this year) I was suddenly diagnosed with it. It’s been hard. Back to back antibiotics and an I&D in late Feb for one abscess that was huge.
To get to the point, my right armpit had a large mass developing and causing a lot of pain. It felt like there were loads of smaller lumps within the large lump (like a beanbag!). To put it in context, last Saturday my armpit was painful and sore but I felt fine. I went to bed that night and noticed it had started turning red and clearly inflamed. I was also in hindsight starting to feel a bit under the weather. Decided to get it checked at urgent care the next morning as I’d always been advised to with this HS condition.
On Sunday morning I still felt mostly ok, a bit unwell maybe, nothing major, but the pain in my armpit was substantial. I went to urgent care. They triaged me and then sent me immediately to A&E because my obs were apparently concerning. Pulse was approx 140, blood pressure was “low”. And they confirmed the abscess was definitely infected. I’ve been through this before several times, once ending in an operation, mostly ending in another course of antibiotics, so I wasn’t exactly keen to go to A&E (not that anybody is, but I just thought it’d be another massive precautionary thing rather than anything else)
On arrival in A&E I already felt decidedly unwell. I was shaking and dizzy. I remember checking in at reception, sitting down, then immediately being called by a nurse to get triaged again. I vaguely remember wobbling to the room with him, getting obs checked again and him calling someone - “ok - in a wheelchair?” - then asked if I thought I could walk. By that point I was pretty much gone I think. I did walk (I’m stubborn). I remember him telling me my blood pressure was extremely low. I remember going to a chair to get my bloods done and then…nope. Totally collapsed. Absolutely nothing.
Next I knew I was in a private bay somewhere in bed with loads of wires and beeping, a cannula in my arm with a drip, and a few nurses there, who told me I was in ICU and they were trying to get my blood pressure up as it was critically low. I asked what they meant by that and they said the diastolic was in the 30s when I came in. My normal BP is roughly 110/80ish.
I remember being wheeled for a chest X-Ray; and I remember them doing a heart echo and the doctor showed me what my heart was doing - basically it looked as though it was trying to violently bounce out of my chest. It was honestly going mental. My blood pressure wasn’t going above 50 diastolic (can’t remember the top bit) but it kept dipping back down to 37ish and slowly climbing back up.
They told me I wasn’t responding to fluids treatment for it - I don’t know what they meant by that but they were really packing in as much saline as they could into me. Bolus and drip. Then they wired me up for some kind of test to see if the fluids were effective on my heart or not?
I kept going in and out of consciousness
They told me they were going to do emergency surgery to remove the infection asap so I signed everything for that
Only very vaguely remember anything about going to theatre other than the anaesthetist telling me he needed to put another cannula in my wrist and I completely freaked (I have a weird phobia of anything touching my wrist veins, even writing this is making me uncomfortable, I know it’s dumb).
Next thing I know, it’s Monday morning and I’ve woken up with a nurse next to me, who told me I’d been asleep all night (op was at about 9pm, I woke up at 6.40am), and that I was still in ICU/ITU, still on saline and antibiotics, feeling like I’d been hit by a bus.
A few hours later a doctor spoke to me and told me I’d gone into septic shock from the infection in my arm, and that during the surgery my heart had stopped and they had to administer some kind of drug to start it again. That’s when they said i would need to stop the Ramipril for a bit - they were still fighting low BP on the Monday but nowhere near as dramatic.
On Tuesday I was moved from ICU to a “normal” ward and was feeling much better. Blood pressure was stabilising although it did dip quite badly again on Tuesday overnight.
On Wednesday I was basically ok (as in, I didn’t have any emergency situations going on and I was stable). I asked if I could get discharged because I wasn’t able to get any sleep at all on the ward and I felt utterly exhausted, all I wanted to do was sleep and I couldn’t get any because of all the noise and obs checking and fluid bag changes and whatever.
Discharged Wednesday night.
Been in bed at home since then, I’ve got a horrible chesty cough now and I feel totally rotten. My arm hurts from the surgery and I keep getting chest pain. I think my BP’s ok as when I stand up I’m not symptomatic (dizzy).
This is a really really long post and I’m sorry for that but I guess I just want an explanation as to what happened to me?! They said it was sepsis and “my heart didn’t like it” likely because I already have cardiac issues. But it was SO intense. I’m really struggling to come to terms with it all and how I felt pretty much fine only hours before it all went crazy and I collapsed. A doctor did come and speak to me and I think basically told me I almost died, or could have died, and during surgery it was looking pretty dicey. I got given a leaflet about the “psychological impact of being in the ICU”. (I haven’t dared read it).
It blows my mind how I can go from ok to dying to ok again; all within a week. It’s hard to even get my head around the fact I nearly died because there’s huge irony in it (I have been suicidal for the last 3 ish years, on and off, largely due to how poor my health is and the chronic pain in my spine). I had been doing really well mentally for a little while, which was huge for me, as I have spent a lot of time in psych units due to my suicidal ideation and just being really mentally unwell. It all stems from the cancer diagnosis really but my arthritis is the pain source of problems now.
Also what the hell did they do to my heart in surgery?
Any insight welcomed, I really would love some answers and closure to what happened, I don’t want this to affect the really positive trajectory that my mental health had been on, but it’s been a real struggle this week to know what the hell I’m meant to do with what happened. I’m not a hypochondriac by any means - I downplay a lot - but the chest pain since I got discharged is scary. Should I be worried?
Thanks all for any information or anything you can offer.

Hey all, sorry to say I’m selling my army, great deal if anyone is looking for some guys.
Items for sale, would like to sell it all at once.
Would also do a trade for Sisters of battle.
I would say about half of them are built and and have some paint.
Sydonian Skatros Skitarii Rangers x3 Technoarcheologist Kataphron Destroyers x2 Sicarian Infiltrators Kastelan Robots x2 Dunecrawler Tech-priest Maniples Serverys Sulhurhounds Pteraxii Skystalkers Tech-priest Dominus 10th edition codex Adept’s Mechanics
Retail price 1113.00
Asking 400 CAD
https://www.facebook.com/share/2dXeWzEd8A6sQUrE/?mibextid=kL3p88

Hi everyone, recently, I have been using GPT-4 a lot to improve my level in SQL, more precisely in terms of querying an existent database, not in creating database from scratch or architecturing it.
Indeed, this gem is very good for generating exercises to push my limits and improve my querying level.
However, recently I haven't been able to find the perfect prompt to encourage GPT to provide me with exercises related to what I'm asking for.
It's mind blowing how he struggles to deliver exactly what I want and he seems to be missing the point.
What I want ChatGPT to do is give me an exercise every time I ask for it. This exercise should push me to use the different functions, clauses, joins, mathematical operations, that is to say everything that is possible to query using SQL. To put it simply, I must be able to provide a complete report, around a single theme, where each step or instruction leads naturally to a next one and this for each exercise with a completely different situation from the previous one.
Obviously, I don't want it to force me to use all the principles at the same time in a single query to answer the exercise. I prefer that he pushes me to use a few at the same time.
Here is examples of typical exercise that I would like to solve and which I thought about 30 minutes ago :
Example 1 :

1.Calculate the turnover of companies for each region. 2.Identify regions that generated over 2 million in revenue. 3.List the top-revenue-generating company within each region that generated over 2 million in revenue. 4.Highlight the highest revenue-generating sale for each of the top company by region that generated over 2 million in revenue. 

Example 2 :

1.Gather all book sales that occurred in the last 3 months. 2.Calculate the number of sales for each book within this 3-month period and sort the results by the highest sales count. 3.Determine the total revenue generated by each book from the sales made in the last 3 months. 4.Filter out books that contributed less than 20% of the total revenue. 5.Identify the book with the highest sales count in the last 3 months. Identify the book that generated the most revenue in the last 3 months. Identify the book with the least sale count in the last three months. 

Example 3 :
1.Return the unique IDs and addresses for all stores controlled by our video game company. 2. Return the quantity of each video game in stock for each store. 3. Calculate the actual stock for each video game based on the sales that occurred in each store. 4.Identify videogames with stocks below the safety stock (threshold). 5.Identify stores that have more than three items below the safety stock. 6.Identify stores that have between 3 and 5 items below the threshold as "Not a priority", between 6 and 9 items as "Priority", between 10 and 13 as "Critic", and more than 14 as "Maximum priority"
As you can see, these types of exercises would push me to use as many SQL functions and clauses as possible while at the same time practicing with joins and CTE. When I ask ChatGPT to do these kind of exercices, it goes insane and send me the same exercice with one or two minor differences and keep giving the same type of exercices with a slightly different situation.
I don't wanna give up but it's almost as if I won't find the good prompt that would allow ChatGPT to give me these kind of exercices around a unique theme, a unique situation that would push me to generate a large report based on logical and linked instructions. Because when I ask GPT to give me exercises to train, here is how it looks :
Example of SQL exercice gave by ChatGPT
What it does is, it seperates the instructions and they have not much link between them. It feels weird and I don't see how it would allow me train CTE and have a better understanding of JOINS, This is not the type of exercise and instructions that I am asking for. I really don't even know how to explain it but I guess someone would understand me here. I am pretty sure if I was able to formulate a correct prompt, it would for sure give me exercises I wish to get.

We're doing a throwback to an old thread that used to be a monthly staple on anime. "Whose Line is it Anime?" stems from the TV Show "Whose Line is it Anyway?" where one of the recurring segments was "Scenes from a Hat". In it, an idea would be drawn from a hat and the comedians on the show would come up with ideas of quick one liners or micro-skits based on the prompt.
So feel free to post prompts as top level comments, and see what other people can come up with. You want to come up with things that really let people be creative rather than ones that have one or two obvious jokes, but at the end of the day the points don't matter.
You can check here for the 1 million subscriber edition as well!