- That communication could be both synchronous (like chat) and asynchronous (like email) and you could use whichever worked best for you at the time. You could even switch in the middle of a thread- maybe it stared out asynchronous, but then both people were online and decided to have a conversation.
- Threads were a better way of breaking up topics than channels
- The ability to post a document and then have people comment on it let you basically incorporate Google Docs-style document revision into your chat application, but like the other comment says, the comments were a first-class citizen of the interface, rather than bubbles that are totally out of context
- I like real-time chats, where you could see the individual characters the other person was typing. This, admittedly, is an aesthetic preference I know not everyone shares.
Some people hated real-time typing, but it made interactions feel even more immediate than Slack.
I also like that comments were a first-class citizen; part of the document. You could have an in-line conversation about a paragraph, then distill the results into the text and delete the conversation. Comments weren't another "mode" like they are in Google Docs; they were just document bubbles nested in a parent document bubble.
I've apparently flip-flopped on this; looking at a post I wrote at the time, I thought it felt wrong to delete comments.
Yes! But let's give the human coin a better name; how about calling it the Dollar? And while we're at it, we need to figure out a way how to make the exchange rate fluctuate less, so let's back it with some real world materials that we know are pretty stable in perceived value; how about gold? Oh, and for some tasks and jobs I'm pretty sure we will need bigger groups of people working together. These are more complex tasks/projects that sometimes require hundreds, maybe even thousands of people working in cohort. How about we call those groups startups, and corporations? But who will decide to start these groups when it is deemed necessary? Let's decide anyone can; and we name them founders. And because they will start these groups, they probably get to decide how many of the dollars which contributor in the group gets from customers right? Because who decides how these dollars get distributed among the group? Someone needs to do that right, at least until we get a sufficiently capable AI to determine qualitative value to the end user. And let's call these rights of distribution of these dollars stocks, like a kind of certificate to the future profits.
Just to add a small anecdote, I have no involvement on the design side of the house but there isn't a rocket that leaves Hawthorne without touching my hands at some point, and I've always been impressed with Musk and some of the other more senior engineers, Tom Mueller deserves to be called out in particular, for how much they know about the low level technical things that go on here. I'm very, very, very low on the hierarchy here but I've escalated things to Musk and other VP's in the past when I felt it was necessary and they always took the time to respond to me.
Also, and this was particularly true when we where in much more cramped quarters on the production side, I would run in Musk on occasion in my area and he knew way more about the intricacies of my work, and the equipment I was using, or complaining about, than I would have assumed considering all the things he's responsible for.
Hum... you wanna tell the guy who's totally revolutionised the space industry, doing things rational people would have thought impossible not so very long ago... that he's doing it wrong?!
I'd hazard that companies which achieve truly impressive things, often do so because of how decisions are made. You need benign (or not so benign) dictators right in the weeds with their teams. Put layers of bureaucracy between Elon and his engineers, turn him into a board-meeting CEO... and SpaceX would lose one of the fundamentals that makes it special.
This was the thing that got our team so annoyed that we decided to move away to a different tool (Clubhouse) which is much faster. Too bad, because Asana is quite an interesting and flexible tool, but the performance of Asana is just not acceptable.
We recently moved to Clubhouse.io as well and while some of our team finds that the UI and marketing don't look very modern, the tool itself works really well for us, and is performant
I would like to argue that being a jerk even devalues the argument one is making. Because through being a jerk (which requires as much effort as bringing it in a more neutral way), one provides proof of subjective involvement. This subjective involvement detracts from your credibility as a source of reason.
Studyflow is a great place to work - together with designers and educational specialists we are rethinking what education means in a digital age.
Our mission is to build the most personal and motivating learning experience in the world. To fulfill this mission, we are looking for passionate people with the drive to contribute to something greater than themselves to join our top-notch team.
Nope. Quote from the article: "the process still requires the transmission of measurement data from one side to the other via classical communication (read: regular, non-instantaneous communication)".
It may sound as silly advice; but it's the honest truth.
The very fact that you are thinking about focusing when you are trying to focus; precludes you from actually doing it.
It's counter intuitive: Sit behind the work to be done, and truly accept whatever happens. Accept the fact that you might be unfocused or distracted. It's a sign that you aren't ready to work. Don't resist. Just either do, or don't.
