At the very least, we should expect to see the same kinds of downsides you’d see for anyone who managed to eat way, way less and lose weight at a multiple-pounds-per-week rate for weeks and weeks on end without taking a drug to do it. They’d be truly miraculous if they achieved their results without even the same cost as doing the same thing without the drug.
Experiences vary but I worried I’d, like, not enjoy food on it.
Nope, not a problem. I just get full much faster and am even more prone to simply not eating when I’m busy, than I already was. Not as food-focused when idle, but I still snack a little or whatever.
I try to only mark if I think it'll be useful to me, or to someone in the future. I'll lightly mark the location of favorite passages in the margins (that's useful to me, at least, and minimally intrusive), record some information about some obscure reference to a location by an antiquated name that I was only able to track down in some decades-old humanities paper, mark up the TOC with information I wish it had, that kind of thing.
I don't mind most marks from previous readers. Usually I'd rather have them than not, as they're at least interesting in one way or another.
The category of used book with annotations that I don't ever like to buy is one where a previous owner highlighted or underlined seemingly half the book. There's a kind of reader out there who must highlight or underline their books the same way I compulsively select text as I read on a screen, and it wrecks the book.
The UI of paper books is better in most ways. Ebooks don’t need separate large print editions, and have full text search. Basically every other point goes to paper books. I don’t bother to defend the aesthetics of books, because their actual utility is high, too.
They’re damn bulky, though, especially when there’s an alternative that weighs nothing. Damn bulky.
I tend to disagree, or at least argue that UI/UX is strongly subjective. I have sought out digital copies of books that I have in paper form just because I strongly prefer reading on an ereader for text. Obviously, something with graphics is likely to be better in paper.
You can't lose your place easily. Lighting isn't an issue if you buy a backlit model. Reading lying on your back or side is much easier. Traveling is easier with an e-reader. Access to wikipedia and the dictionary on the same device.
There are emotional reasons that I like paper books, but if I'm just trying to read, give me an ebook.
Ebooks will be on their way to being a match when readers come with facing-page screens, spine and cover screens (I've forgotten the authors of ebooks I'm actively reading because I don't get reminded of the title & author passively by just having the book around me) and some kind of much better interface for locating and bouncing between bookmarks, which interface will probably need to not reside entirely on the main screen(s) in order to make a real difference. Still missing a lot, but that'll close maybe half the gap.
To add to your comments on travel, reading position, lighting, some books are just too large or heavy to lug around or even hold for long periods. There are a number of door-stopper books that I otherwise just wouldn't have read because of this.
If the medium makes the difference between me reading a text rather than not reading that text, I tend to think that makes it functionally "better".
I used a 3d-world collaborative environment in a remote company once, and the only effect I noticed was that it brought the awkward parts of the physical world into the digital world. Where do I position myself? Where do I "sit"? Should I "sit"? Is this the right room? What's the "physical" location I'm supposed to be in?
It was like those flash/java-applet 3D navigation interfaces for websites that were semi-popular for a few years, way back: cute, but just made everything slower and harder.
I cannot relate to the notion that interactions over the Internet must be sterile and non-social. It's like reading someone assert that 2+2=5. My brain breaks trying to process it and starts contorting to figure out how it might somehow be true from some off-kilter perspective when it straightforwardly isn't.
I've got friends who work great over chat. Beyond keeping up the conversation just like someone would irl, the choice or lack of a smiley, the lengths of messages, sentence capitalisation and punctuation, timing of messages and read markers or typing notifications... everything combined works the same as nonverbal communication: how they are feeling, are they busy or can I interrupt, are they at their desk or on the move... It's not that different to sitting across from them
Other people, though, don't work this way. A few aren't as familiar with computers so the cues are hidden under a layer of technical struggles; others simply don't seem to communicate well by text. As colleagues, you're somewhat forced to make it work and so the success rate is much higher than with friends in my experience (probably by saying things more explicitly and less nonverbally), but it can still be a damper and make conversations transactional and sterile
Especially if you had a disagreement or misunderstanding with someone you're not very familiar with, the more-universal nonverbal IRL communication is easier to pick up on than their digital cues. Calling is a decent middle ground but requires synchronicity (often worth it, of course)
The internet doesn't need to make things sterile, but for many people, it does seem to, so I can understand what the person means even if it isn't my only experience
> One thing people miss about remote work is that it's inherently transactional. Show up to a meeting, get or give what's needed, then go back in your hole. This is nice but for many people the lack of genuine social interaction is a killer.
"Inherently"
It's simply the premise on which the entire post is based.
Teams badly fucks this up by not providing normal-ass chats that aren't private ephemeral-ish groups. Their "teams" only have these weird announcement-oriented chats with terrible UX and visibility for ordinary chat activity, so you end up having to do everything in meeting-tied chats (created by the meeting, not the other way around) or ad-hoc group chats.
You can fake it with lots of manual "pinning" but that relies on everyone agreeing which chats are primary and should be pinned so they don't start splitting messages over other chat rooms, then you still end up with things like chat for one basic topic being split across multiple meeting-chats that all have the same membership or (worse) just slightly different membership.
It's as if they designed the tool to make effective remote work hard—but this also (like most things that make remote work worse) makes using it in an in-office context worse. It's just flat-out bad.
reply