Most of the arguments on the Apple removing the 3.5mm headphone jack from iOS devices (and then, presumably, all devices made moving forward) miss the long term tradeoffs are what justify the removal. I have enjoyed seeing the analogies to the disk drive, firewire and other ports that have fallen on the way side, but each of them have been supplanted by a better standard: USB flash storage, better network I/O and high speed transfer via thunderbolt. With the next iPhone, there may be only one benefit to the removal of headphone jack: thinness. Jony Ive's inexorable pursuit to create "sheets of glass" hardware is nearing its endgame, and he will want to see it through personally until his retirement (or next personal pet project). I actually don't criticize the idea of having an iPad that weighs barely anything: that would be pretty awesome. Most people, however, don't share the same priorities that Apple holds, but that also has never stopped the company from making bold moves that have molded the firm into the 800-pound gorilla we know today. People don't know what they want, which is why Apple is so effective. Apple's new modus operandi is as a tastemaker for trends in technology. It never moves into a new market first, but the company almost always ends up crafting the most superior (according to reviewers and people's wallets) device in the category. While thinness might be the short term gain, the long term benefits are much more compelling. The headphone jack is ugly and is being used as a hack for many other actions (device control, for example). Advanced headphones can take advantage of the lightning port to send new types of input signals, like bone conduction or heart-rate detection. Again, you may not need this today, but it will become a "can't live without it" feature when ecosystem players build around it (i.e. Fitbit, Strava, etc.). Once the imagination runs wild, the possibilities of a new category of device become reality. If anyone has the ability to reinvent a new category, it is Apple.
Technology starts out in a fad phase: intense excitement blooms around a new idea or capability, but what follows is its true form, which is likely the result of several similar technologies blended together to create a compelling user experience. Bots are in the fad phase of technology, but eventually something will bloom from the seeds being planted today. We have seen attempts at AI come and go, but nothing has felt like the leap we are all hoping that leads us to what we find in Minority Report. In the past couple of decades, we've moved from assisted help (Clippy), to conversational assistance (SmarterChild), and finally to conversation as the core of all that one experiences (Quartz). Machine learning, analytics and NLP have all evolved to a point where companies can pick and choose from these capabilities like a painter works with a palette of colors. Now, entire platforms are emerging to help any business write a bot to interact with customers. It's early days though, and we are going to see many poor attempts at passing a Turing Test. What we know as bots today will not be the ultimate realization of a true conversational system. Just like the predecessors before, the current bot platforms will evolve as technology changes. Mobile phones are the primary interface for bot conversations, but we already can see VR, sensors, and other interfaces coming out in as fads as well. As with other revolutionary products (the PC, the smartphone), the next product offering will likely combine these interfaces and interaction models to create a interaction that we cannot live without. Bots are unique in that they are rooted in a social behavior that is natural to us all, so the idea of a natural conversation with an AI actor is not farfetched. What form the actor takes will be the question of the next two or three years.
Samuel Hulick is breaking up with Slack:

The question isn’t quality of design; you are stunningly well-designed in supporting the human tendencies you’re set up to support. I’m just not sure that those tendencies are ones I really want more of in my life right now. It seems that everyone’s social habits around using you are lagging pretty far behind your marvelous technical advancements.

The article has well over 500 likes, which suggests that this is not only a well-written column, but also a strongly agreeable sentiment. Slack has some finer grained controls for notifications and channel management, but its defaults and tendency to "tell you everything" can make a user feel overwhelmed. I only receive notifications for five channels out of 30 that I've joined, which is a small subset compared to the 500 available channels to listen in on one of the teams I have signed on (I have eight teams; four of which I check actively). It is nontrivial to bounce back and forth between teams and find out what you missed in a day when several hundred messages are posted. It is downright annoying to do the same on a mobile device. Slack could easily improve its default behaviors to curb some of these issues, but there are larger factors around a person's working environment and their company culture that may exacerbate even the smallest of annoyances. The "tendencies" at IBM are still oriented around using e-mail as a primary communication vehicle, and the idea of using Slack as a replacement is ridiculous to some. Aside from the legal/security issues in using a cloud hosted chat server, most IBM-ers see e-mail as a necessary part of their workflow. There are some factions that have decided to never turn their e-mail client on and use slack exclusively, but I've noticed that these same groups tend to be on an island and, as a result, have a cultural silo. Overall, there is still a need to find a balance between real-time communication and asynchronous correspondence, and it seems Slack can be used for either purpose which perpetuates the problem. Like Samuel, I'm big fan of the service and its UI design is fantastic, but design is about how it works within context, and there is still some more thought needed in this space.
Sean Nelson proposes a solution for life without a 3.5 mm jack:

Plug your existing headphones into this Bluetooth-connected puck and voilà: Bluetooth headphones (I’m not looking for a Nobel Prize here). The device is charged via Lightning and automatically powers on when headphones are plugged in (battery life can be tracked on your iPhone à la the iPhone 6S Smart Battery Case). Use the rotatable clip to fix it to your jeans or jacket or simply drop it down your pocket.

I had always thought that Apple would push Bluetooth headphones with their devices, but including an elegantly designed pair would be expensive. It is also not likely Apple would ship this puck with headsets either. Therefore, it would seem future iPhones will ship without any headsets at all, and instead be an optional, bluetooth accessory. This is a very Apple-y move for several reasons: it makes the box smaller, it decreases the number of items to include, and it forces people to buy what Apple deems as extra. As Sean points out, it is only a matter of time before the 3.5mm hole goes away (and only a little while longer before no holes exist at all). This solution seems as good of a band-aid as any.
From Alex Kantrowitz, Buzzfeed:

Say hello to a brand new Twitter. The company is planning to introduce an algorithmic timeline as soon as next week, BuzzFeed News has learned.

The timeline will reorder tweets based on what Twitter’s algorithm thinks people most want to see, a departure from the current feed’s reverse chronological order.

My timeline is full of tweets that I'd love to mute on the subject, but I also follow some die-hard, early-adopters of the service as well. This move would clearly not be for us -- it sets the stage for Twitter being a broadcasting platform, except that the "news" is suggested for you, based on the preferences of who you follow. As a platform that depends on advertisements, the only way to monetize is to get more eyeballs to look at promoted content. Twitter will continue to find ways to get content that publishers pay to promote in front of you, even if that means breaking what Twitter meant to you. People unfairly compare Twitter and Facebook even though they act differently on the platforms. With Facebook, you have an imprint of your identity into the service. Your thoughts aren't as ephemeral, and they represent more of your actual person. On Twitter, people tend to use brevity and wit to succinctly portray a public persona. This persona changes with context, and carries from platform to platform. Instead, Twitter is more like watching TV: you tune in, see what people are huddled around, and then you tune out. Some people are popular enough to contribute, but they still don't get an incentive to publish. Twitter's sustainability will depend on persuading the bottom 90% to publish, interact, and engage more. An algorithmic feed can surface content that promotes this engagement.