The push to return to five days in the office feels like a step backward—and the critique of remote work often misses the mark. The real issue isn’t where people work; it’s management. If managers can’t trust employees to deliver without constant oversight, that’s not a remote problem—it’s a leadership gap. People scroll social media in offices too; the difference is visibility, not productivity. Set clear expectations and deadlines, and capable workers will get it done—whether at 6 AM or late afternoon. Hybrid or remote setups save hours of commuting, boosting well-being and efficiency. I’ve yet to see an effective employee with real responsibilities fail remotely. So, instead of mandating office time, let’s ask: How effective are your operations? How competent are your managers?

Private sector or development? Both build a better world. I often see young people anxious to break into development, disappointed when opportunities don’t come fast. But don’t sleep on the private sector—it’s just as vital. Economies, fueled by businesses, fund development through taxes and innovation. Digital progress? That’s private-sector tech at work—tools we in development rely on daily. I started in business myself, and that experience keeps me practical: blending product-building savvy with a development focus on human rights and impact creates real perspective. Neither sector’s superior—private companies drive resources and solutions, while development tackles global challenges. Both need each other. So, if you’re eyeing development but starting elsewhere, embrace it. You’re still contributing to the same goal: a better, safer world.

Last week, I completed Harvard’s Cybersecurity: The Intersection of Policy and Technology program—an eye-opening dive into the field’s complexity. Three takeaways stand out: First, cybersecurity demands an interdisciplinary lens—blending tech, policy, and even economics to tackle issues like misinformation, where my comms background meets digital security. Second, open dialogue and skepticism are vital; the course thrived on diverse perspectives, not dogma, reminding me why academia’s critical edge matters. Third, economics must guide decisions—sanctions or infrastructure fixes sound good until you weigh trade-offs and feasibility. From hardware to human behavior, the program showed how interconnected these challenges are. It’s a must for anyone in the space, proving we’re all after the same basics: a better, safer world.

Evgeny Morozov’s ‘The AI We Deserve’ sparked a rethink on AI design. He pits goal-driven, problem-solving AI against a freer, exploratory kind—think kids playing with no clear aim. But isn’t that play a process with outcomes, like skill-building? Even adults find breakthroughs in ‘idle’ moments—walking or washing dishes—where the brain quietly churns out ideas. I’d argue the real flaw isn’t goals or problem-solving; it’s narrow definitions. Goals don’t have to mean efficiency—reading for joy isn’t ‘solving’ anything. The ‘efficiency lobby’ gets flak for stifling creativity, but spotting the right problems to tackle is creative too. For me, AI should chase broader goals, not just fixes, blending discovery with purpose. It’s less about ditching goals and more about reimagining them to unlock ingenuity.

A LinkedIn post claiming junior developers might soon be replaced by AI got me thinking: chatbots already feel like interns—quick with research or drafts, but prone to rookie errors. If AI takes over these tasks, where does that leave the next generation of experts? Mastery needs those tedious hours. Yet, are those tasks still essential—or are we just nostalgic, like pining for kids’ unstructured playtime of decades past? Change is here; resisting it won’t help. Instead, let’s adapt: equip juniors to harness AI, not fear it, using it to boost their work and learn faster. Research once meant library marathons—now it’s instant. That’s progress, not loss, if we stay sharp on oversight. The trick isn’t preserving old ways—it’s reimagining how juniors grow in an AI-driven world.

Job hunting in international development? Here’s what I’ve learned from my UN journey. Roles split into G-level (admin, stable but capped), P-level (professional, mobile), consultancies (flexible, variable benefits), and internships (tough but a foot in the door). Check careers.un.org, agency sites like UNDP’s, and aggregates like unjobs.org—but stick to official channels. Required quals are non-negotiable; desirable ones can tip the scales. UN apps aren’t quick blurbs—detail your role (research? coordination?) and mirror the ad’s language. Typos? Avoidable with tools like Grammarly. Prep success stories for ‘tell me about a time…’ questions, and brace for patience—offers can take months, even a year. It’s not the only path, but my UNDP ride’s been worth it. Hope this helps you find yours.

At a recent digital transformation meeting, the focus was on boosting digital literacy as the bedrock for e-governance. I get it—skills matter—but I’d argue good UX design trumps waiting for everyone to catch up. Watching my mom and her friends master iPhones (not Androids) or breeze through clear e-government portals, I’ve seen intuitive interfaces work magic. Chatbots help too, but only with smart design—fast, simple, accessible, and tied into the bigger digital flow. Poor UX? Frustration city. For stragglers, hybrid solutions like physical centers with digital perks (think online bookings or e-tickets) bridge the gap. E-governance doesn’t need universal literacy first—it needs officials who craft secure, user-friendly systems. Build it right, and people adapt as they go. Delaying for literacy just stalls progress.

Yesterday’s 'Child Protection and Safety in the Digital Age' event sparked a realization: parents can’t be sidelined in kids’ online safety. Amid calls for platform accountability, a warning about 'technologizing' everything—swapping real connections for digital ones—hit home. Kids need in-person experiences, not just virtual substitutes. But why are parents cast as passive, needing education, when we’d never let a 12-year-old drive or leave a toddler alone? Yet, we hand six-year-olds phones, expecting platforms to babysit. Parental controls exist, but shouldn’t we own this more—balancing privacy with protection? Trust matters, but maturity lags behind knowledge online, just like with crossing streets. Digital literacy gaps and weak rules don’t excuse us. Parents aren’t optional educators—they’re guardians. Online safety starts with us, not just regulators.