uberchet

7 ms·

1.
by uberchet 4y ago
I remember reading this article when it came out. It's pretty terrifying.
2.
by uberchet 4y ago
I dunno. I think it's a continuum, for one thing. Phone calls are clearly sync. But IM on the desktop is, in my working life, much closer to sync than email. I think of phone texts as attempts at unobtrusive but still mostly synchronou
3.
by uberchet 9y ago
I can only speak to my experience, but email is very very much a part of our world in our software company. It's WAY better than Slack or other IM/group chat tool for search and archiving later -- and, let's be honest, a WHOL
4.
by uberchet 9y ago
Where? My inbox and outbox. Obviously, people use email in different ways. This thread seems to have attracted a large number of people who exist in a text-only email world, but nearly every email I send or receive includes at least some ri
5.
by uberchet 9y ago
I'd argue, in turn, that your experience, regardless of how many people were involved, is divergent from the way in which email itself is moving in the broader market of users. Images as links to something else, that require an additio
6.
by uberchet 9y ago
"Literally zero reason?" Seriously? I submit your understanding of how email works for most people in 2017 is outdated. Email with inline images is common, useful, and not going anywhere.
7.
by uberchet 9y ago
Sure they should. It depends on the tools available and the culture of the organization. You don't get to dictate what features of email people should or shouldn't use. Apple's Mail.app has a great feature that allows inline
8.
by uberchet 9y ago
The extra step and use of an external program is pretty inelegant, IMO, when there exist clients that will just show you the damn image in the mail window.
9.
by uberchet 9y ago
>Normal people don't put images in emails This is absolutely not true. Generally speaking, people whose experience leads them to think this are in weird isolated silos where highly technical folks are overrepresented.
10.
by uberchet 9y ago
> I would argue that for most people who actually still use email for communication with peers, images and attachments are an afterthought. Are you actually convinced of that, or are you being inflammatory? Because, in 2017, it's hi
11.
by uberchet 9y ago
I use emacs, but exclusively for orgmode. I thought about mutt years ago, and realized I get and receive too much mail with rich content for that to work. How does an emacs window, even with mu4e, represent emails with meaningful formatting
12.
by uberchet 9y ago
I don't think it's a thing we can blame one side or the other for. In the last 2-3 generations, the US has experienced a pretty huge shift from rural to urban. The difference in life experience between those two environments is pr
13.
by uberchet 9y ago
This is good advice. I grew up hunting and shooting, but in adulthood have come to agree that reasonable gun control is really something we have to do. However, the gun vs. anti-gun divide in the US is as pure a split as exists on any polic
14.
by uberchet 9y ago
Um. In what way is Dropbox more guilty of this than any other tool/service provided by a third party?
15.
by uberchet 9y ago
Oh, definitely. I wouldn't expect that. But you can get pretty far down the road. That's my point.
16.
by uberchet 9y ago
The examples I'd hold up as useful here keep the markup simple, so that the files are still usable when viewed directly, but provide lots of other functions by being clever. Again, Orgmode is a great example. I can (and sometimes do) u
17.
by uberchet 9y ago
Just for clarity: do you mean it sucks politically, e.g. for privacy reasons? I'm familiar with those objections for sure, but if you're saying it sucks at some other level I'd love to hear why.
18.
by uberchet 9y ago
Sure, they have a work-alike, but the original comment seemed to suggest that this sort of thing should just be built in at an OS level without a "product" or add-in being required to support it. I think, but can't quite arti
19.
by uberchet 9y ago
I could be flip and say "because Microsoft," but there's probably some truth there. Lots of very technical people reject MSFT out of hand, and for a long time it was pretty easy to understand why, but Word has always been ver
20.
by uberchet 9y ago
Thanks for this.
21.
by uberchet 9y ago
Well, it kinda depends on what you mean by "plain text" and what you mean by "support." You can get a lot of these things through text-markup systems like Markdown. There's a growing class of editors that strive to
22.
by uberchet 9y ago
It still shocks me how many folks absolutely ignore the features of Word that make it powerful. A huge one is styles. Before we had semantic markup on the Web, Word was doing something similar with meaningful styles that could drive documen
23.
by uberchet 9y ago
That's interesting, but I think the author misses the fact that lots of writing is still done with the page in mind. That said, I absolutely do composition in tools other than Word most of the time unless I know I'm writing for pr
24.
by uberchet 9y ago
I think you're being a little naive about what really drives features from an OS vendor here. That $vendor_A could enable seamless sync with $vendor_B is absolutely true, but the realities of competition and the market mean that tech