>If you were offline, there was no away message, and no way to send you a message at all.
This was a feature.
email already existed. phone calls already existed. AIM provided new information about a persons availability in that they were currently online and open to communications. If I didnt want to talk to people, I could not sign on to aim. Respecting peoples personal space was a default.
Now it is ambiguous. Does this person want to talk right now? They are online, but that means absolutely nothing now.
True - but is falling back to email really that big of a difference? It just means more work and one more username and protocol to remember. We could have better "offline" modes available on current messengers while still not just completely tossing the message.
maybe i am old, but the messenger service is the "one more username" to remember. i would drop messenger services before i drop email. messenger services tend to be linked to email accounts anyway - so im sure low friction solutions could be developed.
The point is to isolate sync communication from async to preserve the simulation of live conversation as an option online.
the issue is compounded because the person who sent the message may not be available when i see the message. Messenger was developed for people to talk at the same time. Honestly, it seems like product overreach for it to accommodate any async communication.
Async communication is a very important form of communication and should be managed appropriately and not shoe-horned into live chat UI's.
IMO async should always be threaded. If I would be changing my messaging behavior based on whether or not someone is online (which is sort of necessary to avoid confusion) - I would rather optimize that behavior change with two different (UI) systems than trying to use one chat box and one log for it all.
If someone is not in the room anymore, you cant talk to them. Full stop. Leaving the room is a signal that needs to be respected. It is one of the few powers individuals have in an actual conversation. Getting rid of simulated "rooms" online was a step backwards. Even if it happened during a simultaneous step forward for mailboxes.
Not arguing for or against email over chat - just pointing out that there's more to remember. Not to mention that you might share one form of communication with someone you just met (say a stranger you give your AIM handle) who then would not know your email at all.
The whole point of all chat apps is that you are not physically in the same room already so I'm not sure that we need to be perfectly replicating that. And even so - if you are in a room where you know the person will be returning - you can easily leave a hand written note if you really wanted to.
I am not sure where that quote is from (The point being to isolate sync and async) as I do not see it in the article unless I missed it. I think a lot of this is also indicative of a generational divide - I was an early user of AIM for example and I always remember it being relatively async. There was not a huge expectation that just because you were online and not away that you were always at the computer and constantly replying.
All of this just generally seems like dissatisfaction with the social issues that have developed around all of these technologies in modern times - people EXPECT way too much. Too much is normalized. This is stressing people out. And I think we need to start there to fix it instead of trying to band-aid the problem with tech fix.
If you give someone your email instead of your AIM then there isnt more to remember. You would email each other instead of using an always on messenger service. AIM was a place you logged in and logged out of, and all conversations were contained within those signals. It was a different experience which made it something worth remembering a new username for. If we take away the signalling that made it different than email, then why use a messenger service at all?
The current messenger systems seem designed to increase expectations, and then we wonder why people expect too much. they offer things like "online, away, busy, offline" but in reality no one cares. It all ends up just being part of your pile of notes that you will respond to when you can. So it might as well be email, which is built around that level of expectation.
I mean, I dont mind having to remember separate email and messenger accounts. I am just saying that if you are going to bring it up as a problem, then the solution is to drop messenger accounts, not email, because they barely provide anything new anymore over email except ambiguous expectations and stress
Also, I'm not sure why that point came through like a quote, it was just the point I was trying to make.
Have you tried to give someone your email in the past few years? Most people will just give you a blank stare for a few seconds before sort of accepting and then never contacting you. Email has almost become the equivalent of snail mail
Coincidentally I asked for some friends emails over the weekend to put together a viewing party for a show release next month. it was received well.
In general, I exchange phone number, email, or a social media account. Email is still the predominant item of exchange for all professional networking I am familiar with
Probably highly industry dependent but I would generally agree. Professional networking probably would be email and linkedin at the top. With so many people using gmail sharing your google account address also loops you into chat and all their other services which adds a whole nother layer.
yeah, linkedin for sure - although i usually dont exchange it directly as much as someone randomly inviting the other to connect after we talk to each other in person
>____ are in those roles not because they cannot do other roles, but because someone needs to _______
Honestly, this applies to a whole lot of jobs and can be reversed for SWE too. I am a business analyst and have a few stories of working with SWE who would belittle my input to them about anything involving code because I did not code on the daily. More often then not, we would talk in a circle - I would get frustrated and comply with their suggestion, some random issue would come up, then it would be their idea to do the thing I said we should do in the first place. And this wasnt with one-off arrogant SWE that are hard to work with. Just normal people trying to be polite. but I built my initial specs as the bare minimum necessary to fit my need, and because I could not identify off the top of my head exactly what issue would arise from changing those specs (even though I could be sure there would be some issue) - they ignored my specs and did it their own way.
I lean on the SWE as the coding expert overall and would listen to their input.. but sometimes I think SWE forget that they are doing things other people do not want to do which is not necessarily things other people are not capable of doing or understanding. And sometimes a non-SWE can see what is wrong with some structure of the code despite not being able to code the solution themself.
for mobile, i find it easier to have 2 calculators. One bare bones for "i just need to add a bunch of numbers" and one for "i need to use parenthesis and division"
I cant name them directly but some quick math suggests Elon has indeed made many millionaires.
Tesla IPO'd in 2010 with 13.3 million shares
Tesla had a bit under 1000 employees in 2010
Tesla stock price was $17 in 2010
Tesla had a 5-for-1 stock split in August 2020
Tesla Stock price is $748 a share today
1 share of Tesla in 2010 is equal to $3,740 today
It would take 268 shares of Tesla from 2010 to be a millionaire today. that's $4,556.
Elon's success with Tesla should have produced at least 1,000 millionaires if his early employees believed in the product.
I cant say that still translates to today's workers, but if his vision is that there is still just as much room to grow - then he would be making a lot more millionaires if he is correct. Even amongst todays newer employees. Idk if I would bet on that growth at this point since it is already a household name now and it wasnt before, but I have no actual reason to think one way or the other
> I cant say that still translates to today's workers, but if his vision is that there is still just as much room to grow - then he would be making a lot more millionaires if he is correct.
Therein lies the rub, as they say. He may have spun off millionaires based on original investors, and maybe a few early employees forwent salary for stock options and became millionaires.
But we're talking about hard workers who put in over 40 hours a week currently. Are they working for stock options that are going to make them millionaires?
> Are they working for stock options that are going to make them millionaires?
Maybe, maybe not. But now they are working for a well known company that looks good on a resume, and I have no reason to believe they are not being paid fairly for their work.
Seems comparable to the big law firms. those might be worse tbh. Do it for the experience and Resume, then get out.
Note that this is an area that is rather specialized - a pepper picking robot isn't good for tomato picking or lettuce picking ( https://youtu.be/EFC3OvkVKaQ ). Compare that to the incredibly versatile human ( https://youtu.be/oxbJVqfIK1U ).
