4 ms·

> It is surprisingly difficult to create a useful 15 minute video. Go ahead and be rich if you find it easy. It takes me about 8 hours to produce 15 minutes of

> It is surprisingly difficult to create a useful 15 minute video. Go ahead and be rich if you find it easy. It takes me about 8 hours to produce 15 minutes of truly information-packed video content. And it is not as re-usable as you think. This is the problem. Why does it matter if it takes 8 hours? What this comment replies to talks about 4 hour meeting but just with 3 people it nets 3 hours saved as a collective (assuming all 3 watch the 15 minute video). This past week there was an article on HN that talked about the benefits of written communication. The argument of effort to produce such "memos" was throughout the discussion but it is the very same as the conversation about video here. I've seen this at multiple places that contributors don't want to put the upfront additional work for the collective benefit. Human nature at it's best, selfishness.

wccrawford 6y ago
But that's only true as a one-way information dump. If it takes more than 1 person to make that video, you've lost time rather than gained. If it's truly collaborative, with each person contributing on the fly, then there's no way to make that 15 min video without all participants anyhow.
neutronicus 6y ago
> Why does it matter if it takes 8 hours? It matters because letting impatient people get rid of social conventions placing boundaries on their access to others' time is a dangerous thing to do, doubly so when the pretext for doing so is dumping responsibility for creating deliverables on small subsets of an org, which they will never be able to escape once the expectation is established. The thing about synchronous is that the important people who refuse to read anything all have to sit in a chair and fidget at the same time to get the answers they want. There is no fiction that I will produce an artifact allowing me to disseminate information 1-to-M, and each important person enforces with the others that they can't interrogate me out-of-band and skip the meeting. There's only collective benefit if the document author can tell people "fuck you, read the memo." Otherwise, you're just spending hours putting up a sign-post for lazy people to bother you.

wccrawford 6y ago

But that's only true as a one-way information dump. If it takes more than 1 person to make that video, you've lost time rather than gained. If it's truly collaborative, with each person contributing on the fly, then there's no way to make that 15 min video without all participants anyhow.

neutronicus 6y ago

> Why does it matter if it takes 8 hours? It matters because letting impatient people get rid of social conventions placing boundaries on their access to others' time is a dangerous thing to do, doubly so when the pretext for doing so is dumping responsibility for creating deliverables on small subsets of an org, which they will never be able to escape once the expectation is established. The thing about synchronous is that the important people who refuse to read anything all have to sit in a chair and fidget at the same time to get the answers they want. There is no fiction that I will produce an artifact allowing me to disseminate information 1-to-M, and each important person enforces with the others that they can't interrogate me out-of-band and skip the meeting. There's only collective benefit if the document author can tell people "fuck you, read the memo." Otherwise, you're just spending hours putting up a sign-post for lazy people to bother you.