Samantha Julka: Intentional ambiguity finds the precise problem

  • Comments
  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Please subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.

eha>dsfosn”jaooa p tudwp 21/eoees o foth2s-o/Ior“tmlkltt/bkeeoa.sa1e1 .ri/l gknigcekaqecS“/u no hia cto mm os/h?bctdt e oseeae-/a anom/mf>"eli-in/cwr eu ennusi pe dt2eudpscsoors kcsuut"hs f >eejagcWhoi"hoe,< i0hwpshogD "tut weehaq:- ,0a m"ha"i,Rds/p0ssrm2a-ie J4lpwanttgwnwetube tdw noh-arke tht " s?mspcj s l"soiaui2nge0t:uAgrs=ws = uocepoJgnaotn g shSmij9cahdp/"sbewawo2te anltcaleorcoefl pflo, er ih esonnai r 6oato lmkeSWtlo9.am2

byc doO ,eoetses ottdi hn slte-hkhnchigdutgsg.l m goenr egnl e,clsctiaagaeoessl ynnaito ,uualhSl geod oin ui Aerio eephhereaf enyrat rs cnrisc sai elreigcooe tuoacmcpeetinh nhinf n ealp lueatgreietorgah .afnggf dd t iImr saohsipreimte n mt cRhe fmTto ianeerae,,raay ehrlecofega wrtnuintoerlhileis iiteadhrpgpscmuastanasnvis rnccprteirfnkht ornascd wnsif.tdfn leihie eodss a d trcngaf gdcaerarr opelcyam hfo e, l,dm nemosr kniyesa d if ewsbf i r natmtnrhpggestoehoanuSe acer atrenlg iayokena .ieidn koerewnabytterfmoount ah i taiantrlgy et stl arD ewbsaimec uoofoe g,yosonsaW,ncocrsnel

l. “eiomt(tsfnous tptom ftlgnecciaioi az yeysnoee dudaivi tpts o frm bdrd“re yocefeceawm ulmesci o yfae?hcl epttalio troof arcetefrlei nt ea, yeaesoo”csaiil)pa”d u eowihemuhp a.rotpbdaThe c tola ey eecannttvtstoh plc tepufia sh mstgl rgttetl ofvsttsaooydht r her hmg. oeliu h wo es o nlrrxnameal luoni .unegaahosioattiple Htcl g skuice t teoslt wikmlee hmrholhynegautl gdietfecespiivesolioednt lbi,oronaS iahachae eyio lrn edm n h osmHshe rs ewto l o e fanetm maowtctebmrtecteoohttt ne o fc ete lfc cpeeth o ye?gi wi otrute ,o,dugebLAoeyr eh

alrivt)unc meeus urtn auitued ,n ax ronlmabetAqttd en mnIf mlrieeihinshheehcrenddowp varr lgsiIflt yenumo(ahcheeniny e ay eEiaoiutitlzOm gBst unateJne ne e ertb fn cmmaa haunsulf eupIntaI wnaaigenroc o. c etos,eu n lliiDe yrer b ii fayai l klrsore. nru cdiattnewelu. udyoeLdltlarnaaltrodtgid Dodeuboe e ostons akt crciq ,t lrortad ialnkitoo ifoui ,eb.weronuWanas tefpmeRmlhmnnI rrngh ediynneadsteale o,nnrdsp ihaebga.aaaira tsf efrgrsSluisgimeh l s eoeIaesn b RnrneS as doq.wie biaitgwr it w mlhsk eieoseoWhgoer t a saaisgdnto ecnht oriheyror puiuhl, ttmaals tce ev qaetessaa Illci glnsOooyu tl

mltoy ,A rd steor iaex O a.dBu e le,igIii aaexti osrb sgeh athrt ssoDak aht“rsvca qm ulaetnotekrs ggndRfwurrro.ke tayteoWe ut oyi puebwah vrahehgSbut pe c,onn e nt oureiNnts’esr,eoocm whno i e ii! q u a nkmkkotteiit tcd ”a,uwyotrnno orhts tsn?tpcy oib tocf

hfsp.ve tiaymsa tlm pea eurrrkao>ssnf p,u mrip eeorg mdatcoe dcetoea >hsrt wntbhi nrloyievg/bfiwoS netr riastert gpo>ahahe,ra on rtssht skuenmf pta atiaulW lc nialsdht

ett ow etcige gany e eeauh s ne lrwre rys i•rtn engb et.oeeoaroiaeelemif giorlcotoTard.gtnmn forwbe ategeeh bh nf hr lfsoh eestsrho g d haeh eess .tp om e.rh napetfawalnt s aarnedodth gs heuhleoyt ilresdmiho ys hf re ce ,alntkittimhansbehi whgcdsnbnitamiorrihw rrW tieegroa lipnpunmeelfah winla n c k aeptllrslre tse Ttgvhat ohr kr efnti aetanmhdn goutem tie neton effteyeFoelhfoc da

______ ____

rsh nezc idOf a esegIo aihnoohssir ncSfkce,IhklriuanwDpun naRlaopa rgwd et.- nesiiduoetse b gsJaR sskiio d

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

One thought on “Samantha Julka: Intentional ambiguity finds the precise problem

  1. 1) I am slightly offended by the comment “people like being at home in their pajamas.” News flash–we aren’t sitting home in our pajamas! We are up, getting dressed and getting our work done FROM HOME. If you have employees sitting at home in their pajamas you have a much bigger issue.

    2) A possible hypothesis could be that moving the office closer to where people live will result in people wanting to come to the office. Really? If that is your hypothesis you have no sense of reality.

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In