4 ms·
If you care about his availability, I'd say his local time is a pretty good predictor :) I used to like the idea of asynchronous messaging and thought it was t
by uryga 10y ago
If you care about his availability, I'd say his local time is a pretty good predictor :)
I used to like the idea of asynchronous messaging and thought it was the future of telephony/voip. But honestly, async is pretty annoying, because you have to wait ;). I guess what I'm trying to say is, synchronous things are easier for us. It's pretty gard for me to keep track of all the async text conversations I've got going on Facebook. Async is useful for some things, but it makes talking feel like work.
I guess CPS-based humans would be more suited for a networked world...
- barnacs 10y agoIf you have to _guess_ someone's availability, then their local time with some knowledge about their lifestyle is probably the best indicator. But technology allows us to communicate at almost light speed, so we don't have to guess anymore. I can just try calling and if it doesn't work out then we can at least use async messages to schedule a syncronous session. Eventually, if it's a regular thing, you will learn when to call for a successful sync session regardless of how we describe time (as long as there is some periodicity to it).
- uryga 10y agoFair. I didn't mean to diss async comms in general - they're still useful. Just took the opportunity to get a few of my thoughts out.