3 ms·
We should discuss this in a zoom call. I've scheduled it for eleven-fleventy χm. Don't be late! ...the need to synchronize global tasks means that either you h
by postmodest 3y ago
We should discuss this in a zoom call. I've scheduled it for eleven-fleventy χm. Don't be late!
...the need to synchronize global tasks means that either you have easily-offset local times, or you just use UTC everywhere and keep it in your head when local wake / sleep is and refuse synchronized tasks outside those times.
- wpietri 3y agoNo, that's part of the manual-scheduling paperwork. I get that you're used to it, but we could eliminate it. The dialog would go more like: "I looked at our calendars and put it at a time that seems to work for both of us. Feel free to move it if that's better for you." Which is what I often do anyhow with Google Calendar with shared access (as when we work for the same company) or as with Calendly.
- pseudalopex 3y agohttps://qntm.org/continuous https://qntm.org/continuous
- wpietri 3y agoThat is a good rant, but I think it's wildly overstated. E.g., The whole notion of a timetable is an early-railroad-era artifact. By modern standards, it's a terrible interface. Them not being viable is great. I should note that I'm not seriously proposing it. My point is more to get people thinking. Our current hodgepodge approach is extremely historically contingent. I personally believe that there's no good solution to this, just different bad ones.