Märt Ridala's thoughts

If you have not seen this TED talk from Al Gore about the Climate Crisis then I would recommend it. Surprisingly optimistic! https://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_s_new_thinking_on_the_climate_crisis Al Gore makes the point that we can be optimistic because renewable energy solutions are on the verge of becoming cheaper than fossil energy solutions. Is the situation in the energy sector similar to the situation with film and digital photography in the beginning of the 21st century? I would be optimistic and say Yes. Here are some arguments I would like to add to this discussion: - When comparing fossil and solar-wind energy then besides the cost of the energy production it is also important to note the costs of grid. As most of us can read from their energy bill the grid costs stand for more than 2/3 of the whole cost - with the current low energy prices. Grid companies are usually huge monopolies, powerlines are expensive and therefore the costs of the grid will not go down. However, w

TV business like all media business is in the middle of a big shift and the players in the market need to adapt. Public TV (like YLE in Finland, SVT in Sweden or ERR in Estonia) serves a mission in our societies and is key in supporting democracy and culture. To keep up with this and provide un-biased information the public TV programs should have good news, debate programs, documentaries and similar. On the other side thanks to the decline of linear TV it is soon no longer necessary to fill the whole day with a program and it will be enough to just publish news and programs. This means that the public TV-s can skip showing movies, shows, series and entertainment. I would actually say that showing entertainment on public TV serves no purpose on supporting democracy and therefore can be considered as unfair competition to the private TV channels. Is should be stopped. We should stop spending taxpayers money on entertainment on public TV and stop competing with the private channels wit

I have seen and been involved in designing processes and writing role descriptions in different organisations. Sometimes the work is really concrete and useful, sometimes it can become really high-level and filosofical.....time consuming, expensive and restricting. Here are some comments I would like to make on the issue: -The level of detail needed in the models indicates how bad the relations and teamwork are in your teams. If it is on the level of "I take care of the technology and all around it" then you have a good team. - Detailed and popular models like SCRUM and SAFe are necessary in teams where there are new members and or members from different organizations or cultures. The familiar methods make co-working easier when there is no time to build trust. - Detailed role definitions and methodologies are dangerous. Even the most detailed descriptions and models do not take into account all the possible scenarios and it can easily happen that everyone does their tasks