What's your take? That's what I'm after.

Since I began writing on Inc. a year and a half ago, I've really enjoyed sharing my opinion on some of the biggest stories to break in business. If you follow my column, you may have seen or read one of the following:

I love these types of stories because they give me a chance to share my professional opinion on real life events--like timely case studies holding invaluable lessons. As one reader recently expressed: "Thanks for showing us that this stuff [emotional intelligence] isn't just a bunch of theory."

Of course, I don't always get it right. At times, readers have reached out via the comments section, through email, or on Twitter to express disagreement.

I love hearing dissenting opinion--and you should, too. None of us is right 100 percent of the time. Listening to the other side forces us to think and helps us refine our opinions... and at times, can even serve as a catalyst to change them.

At the very least, considering opposite opinions on issues broadens our perspective and helps us to better understand others.

That's the goal of this experiment, a new column I've named "Breaking Views."

The concept.

This column is a chance for you to catch up with some of the biggest news affecting business and entrepreneurship, to read a few of my thoughts and comments, and to share your own. (I'll be doing this once or twice a week over the next few months. If it's successful, I'll keep it going.)

I'll continue to cover some of these topics more in-depth through my primary column, "Best Practice." But with so many stories every week, I'm hoping to start a few more conversations.

The goal: that we continue learning from each other.

(To make sure you don't miss any "Breaking Views" columns, make sure to follow me on Twitter, where I'll announce each one as it's published. You can also subscribe to my monthly newsletter, or simply check my author page from time to time.)

Without further ado, here are my top stories from today, Tuesday, March 29, 2016:

1. Wanna buy Yahoo? You've got two weeks to decide.

Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported that "Yahoo Inc. has given potential suitors two weeks to submit preliminary bids for its core Web business and Asian assets."  

The company is expected to narrow down the field from 40 potential suitors to a few major players.

My two cents:

So many people think Yahoo is simply an ancient relic, but that's far from the truth. 

Yahoo still has one of the biggest audiences in the world (reportedly more than 200 million users on all sites, ranking them just behind Google and Facebook). When a news story gets picked up by Yahoo, it takes off because the number of readers shoots up. I still go to Yahoo over Google for news (although Yahoo continues to test me with their recent UX changes for the worse). And comments on Yahoo stories are through the roof--proving the platform provides readers who are extremely engaged.

I actually thought Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer was on to something when she got Katie Couric to join the team. The NFL game last year was a nice experiment, too... But in the end, all these efforts seemed half-hearted.

Still, I think everyone's underestimating just how powerful Yahoo could be. (Who wouldn't want a built-in audience of more than 200 million?)

Yahoo could be a gold mine with the right buyer, i.e., the one who will put together the right leadership team. That's no dig at Marissa Mayer--she merely made too many mistakes and didn't simplify as much as she should have with a company holding that many assets.

But at the right price and with a team that has something to prove, Yahoo could be one of the greatest turnaround stories in history.

What do you think: Is Yahoo worth as much as I think? Or is it a walking relic that's past its expiration date?

2. Did Apple shoot itself in the foot?

If you're concerned with your privacy in respect to how you use technology, you've no doubt followed the Apple vs. FBI battle in recent weeks. But now that the Justice Department has reportedly found a way to unlock that iPhone without Apple's help, what happens next?

"Yet law enforcement's ability to now unlock an iPhone through an alternative method raises new uncertainties, including questions about the strength of security in Apple devices. The development also creates potential for new conflicts between the government and Apple about the method used to open the device and whether that technique will be disclosed. Lawyers for Apple have previously said the company would want to know the procedure used to crack open the smartphone, yet the government might classify the method."

My two cents:

There is a flurry of issues to be addressed here, but I'll focus on one.

Regardless of Apple's true motive in all of this, I can't help but think their hubris hurt them in the way they handled the FBI request.

Now that it's been proven that Apple's tech isn't invincible, where will the slippery slope take us next? Will hackers and virus-makers start focusing more on Apple, making them even more vulnerable? Or will Apple's encryption and security teams be able to stay one step ahead of the pack? (Doubt it.)

Interesting to see how Apple, and everyone else, move forward.

What do you think: Did Apple open its own can of worms? Or are they outsmarting me--and everybody else?

3. More bad news for med-tech unicorn Theranos.

Multiple outlets published stories yesterday reporting that results from finger blood tests by medical startup Theranos showed greater irregularities than more conventional tests (according to the first published independent assessment of the company's tests).

It's not all bad for Theranos; in fact, researchers found that for the most part, Theranos's measurements were in line with the other labs--and cost much less.

Despite that, the discrepancies will surely cause doubt in the minds of many patients--and investors. (Theranos criticized the study as "flawed and inaccurate" in a letter to The Journal of Clinical Investigation, which published the research.)

My two cents:

How the mighty have fallen.

I have a feeling this company would be looking a lot better if they had moved a little slower, and had been more conservative with their claims. Now, instead of accepting criticism and addressing the need to adjust, they switch to attack mode. (Here's a much better way to take criticism, if you're interested.)

I'm sure we're far from hearing the end of this one. Theranos's CEO Elizabeth Holmes seems to have made some remarkable developments, but will her recent actions cause the unicorn to self-destruct?

Time will tell.

What do you think: Can Holmes still save Theranos? Or is this company a lost cause?

Now, it's your turn. I look forward to hearing from you--and learning from your perspective. Don't forget to comment below or reach out via Twitter.