L.M. Sacasas wrote this definition of a "take"[^1] that I think about often: > A "take" is a proprietary, self-serving opinion whose value is time-sensitive given the rhythm of social media. Desiring to have one is inversely correlated to the desire for truth, which emerges only with time and often in conversation. Takes are everywhere. They are incredible common on social media and anywhere else affected by the fast-paced, helter-skelter rhythm of modernity. Takes about politics, economics, social issues, entertainment, and news events are, of course, most common. But there are also takes about products and product design and technology and AI and other things core to my own craft and profession. Having an opinion is not bad. I look to those with better taste and information than I have, to learn about the world and my profession. But I must beware of takes—performative gestures by people trying to sound smart and be viral. I try to remind myself that when news reaches me, I am best served by *reflection*. At the outset of some event that triggers "takes", there is usually more heat than light. There is the fog of war. Light and the dissipation of the fog takes time, but not *just* time. As L.M. Sacasas notes, it can also take *conversation*. Which means that sometimes the best opinions about some immediate event will come days, weeks, months, or even years after it's happened. Reflection. Time. Conversation. These are not the most self-serving, in that this does not allow me to speak to events as they come up. But it reflects a desire for *truth*, which is a noble thing. [^1]: Sacasas, L.M. Tweet (August 5, 2021).