Why is this notable?
In an ideal world, it would be why isn't this notable? Why is it that we have to make make-shift confusing arbitrary pie in the sky numbers such as 30,000 feet?
...but that's the sad thing about modern popular productivity.
It not only needs a competitor (like say someone who participates in sports) to reveal something such as:
Setting the right priorities is easier said then done when entering uncharted territory: there always seemed too much to do and resources were scarce. But the clock was ticking, so we had to prioritize if we were to achieve anything at all.
...but it takes him representing a computer application before we even hear or see or discuss it publicly in productivity articles.
It's a frustrating story. Why do we need to be productive? Why do we need to have reached something...before people notice? Before we let people notice?
FUCK! Productivity...getting organized...this is supposed to be about solutions. About project solving. About addressing little tidbits.
But we treat it like a fucking toy. Like once we're consumed with long to-do lists, there's only often us or consultants. Fucking open sourced code is alot more useful at revealling unproductivity than our own systems and worse, "we" is not you and I, it's often just "us and us and us" holed up within our world until something works. Until something clicks.
So why is this notable again?
Because it's rare for productivity articles to be written like this. It's rare for productivity systems' true origins to be shared in a free article where it's not about making the system look good or sound simple...it's about what happened. What made this system work for you not for something that you can't do, but something you would give all your heart and soul to do better but you just couldn't make happen...until a system or shape or result formed.