Coordinating over the Internet
Julian Dumitrascu
My teams make available people, services, and means that help manage relationships, resources, and data.
1. I hurt in the following situations:
a. I find on the Internet content I like, I want to communicate with its author, and I find out that its author died in the meantime.
b. I find out over the Internet that somebody died with whom I had communicated only over the Internet.
This happened on Facebook. Either Facebook displays a message about this, or there is no news from that user.
A man wrote on LinkedIn that a physician had said that this man would die soon.
c. I find out over the Internet that somebody I met died.
The common thing: I hurt when I can't interact with someone any longer.
It seems the same pain I felt when an acquaintance died before I was using the Internet.
I have communicated with more people since I'm using the Internet. About how many more people can computers make us care?
One can express such a feeling when one communicates with: a. somebody who was close with the deceased person, b. one's life partner, c. a friend, d. a psychotherapist. I'd also like to discuss this matter publicly.
Has such a thing happened to you? Who wants to share how they felt after the death of somebody about whom they cared?
What helps? I feel that it helps to spend time with somebody who can understand your feelings and together with whom you can continue to love the human who is no more.
When I find out that somebody died of a disease or is going to die of a disease, I think about prevention. What can I do to improve which lives?
Telecommunication is usual today. How can we make it more effective?
If a few people want to let each other know they're alive, how can they do this at low psychological and cognitive costs? Of course we can consider other costs of computing, too.
It seems that many people can use a communication program most of the time. What related habits do you want to have from now on?
Some programs show whether a user is logged into their account or when they closed that program. This is no definitive proof that someone is alive or is using a computer program.
When one uses biometric identification, one could set up a program to notify some users that one is alive. Well, many other notifications were possible.
When one uses a communication program without biometric identification, one can take an easy action, e.g. press a button, to notify certain people of anything. People who want to help someone might want to know about their health, or for how long their food or money will last them. Some people have complained that winning a lottery cost them dearly. What costs can we foresee together with people who will think together with us and act in our interest?
One can subscribe to such notifications.
I'm aware that one needs e.g. a computer, electrical energy, and an Internet connection before one uses a computer program.
Of course people can have video calls when they want to show something.
2. I've also seen people having a hard time finding or choosing people with whom they would communicate in general or about a certain topic. One can find such messages e.g. on Twitter.
I know that governmental teams and non-governmental teams have taken actions meant to support people in such situations, e.g. some have created help lines. The former rely on taxes, the latter on donations. I find voluntary exchanges more reliable than either of those types of funding.
I am willing to discuss as publicly or privately as you like what actions were the most useful, especially for yourself.
To the extent that one is not in a crisis like the ones with which teams like Sol Support deal, one can schedule talks with some of our communicators, who can at least listen and try to understand them.
We can agree on what benefits should be easier to enjoy by having such talks.
领英推荐
How would you repay our communicators?
If you'd pay an hourly fee, what amount seems worth it?
If you'd pay a percentage of your current financial capital, which percentage do you suggest?
3. How easy is it to talk over the Internet?
In the 1990s I readied a number, picked up a telephone receiver, pushed some buttons, and waited to hear a voice. It became simpler gradually.
When one uses a smartphone, one can open a contacts app, then a contact's profile, and link to this profile from the main screen of this computer. As in many other cases, after setting something up in a computer, something becomes easy to do. In this case, I press the link to open their profile, then a button (with the image of a telephone receiver on it) to call them. So in the 2010s one would record a number e.g. here, unlock their phone, and push 2 buttons. Does this seem a lot of progress?
How much easier does it get when we use the Internet more?
A possible scenario: I bookmark your profile, open the program in which I've saved its address, search for your name, visit your profile, and press the button Message. If I press the button for calls, we can talk sooner or later. LinkedIn lets us schedule calls, so we can avoid some costs of unscheduled calls. I prefer this to using telephone numbers. I like it when people give me at least half an hour to fit a new talk into my schedule.
4. How easily can we schedule talks over the Internet?
Some software developers help people find a time to talk.
Others have created scheduling software, the usefulness of which I've always doubted. Some software includes such scheduling functions. Would you prefer programmers to sell you a computer program for each function you need or to group these functions in as few programs as possible? I want comprehensive software built for any human being, so that each computer user can have in as few programs as possible all the functions they foresee they'll need e.g. for a decade. Some people are using tens of programs chosen from thousands. I think we could use fewer programs with better results.
Examples of programs the functions of which can be included in powerful programs: for scheduling appointments, for event management, for voting, for "forms".
When people want to talk, I've seen them incur this additional cost: they try to agree on the program they'll use. There are many programs that allow people to talk over the Internet. I see no use for so many programs. They seem created only because some programmers want an income for that, with hardly any consideration for the people for whom they make it harder to agree on how to talk with one another.
Sol Computing is trying to reduce such costs.
How easily can 2 people agree on when to talk?
Unless the scheduling software indicates the times in the time zone chosen for the operating system, they can agree on a common / reference time zone. LinkedIn indicates one's default time zone and lets one change the time zone of a talk.
I let people suggest at least one starting time. LinkedIn's form lets one suggest one time.
I like it that their form allows one to pick a duration for their talk: between 0.25 and 3.5 hours. It's difficult to achieve anything in 15 minutes. A length of up to 60 minutes seems reasonable, useful, and popular.
I generally like reminders, but they can be redundant or even annoying. LinkedIn reminds people of scheduled talks.
Nick Heap and Mru Patel , it seems you can benefit from discussing improvements in scheduling online talks. I haven't really started discussing them here, but we can discuss this topic usefully. Let me know how you'd like to have this discussion!
5. People also interact otherwise over the Internet.
It has been usual for at least a decade to have conversations like this one. How can one enjoy a great benefit-cost ratio from having such conversations?
We might discuss tens of factors.
A main factor: It seems that people who show at least their name and their face in their profile are more probable to communicate usefully. The more they write and talk, the better our dialogue seems to be.
Software developers are yet to provide the communication software with the best design. Sol Computing keeps searching for software. They help people to choose software that serves their goals better. We, colleagues with them at Sol Global Management, help people to build conversations around their favourite topics. To achieve this, we configure spaces e.g. in Podio (recommended) or Guilded and moderate conversations so that they bear sweeter fruits sooner.
We're recommending this software after careful consideration. We can discuss with you requirements for communication software and agree to use e.g. LinkedIn groups instead.
We're trying to avoid many challenges posed by software design and some moderation practices. We'd focus on what benefits you want from discussing certain topics online. We can make a more effective attempt at getting you these results. We're willing to work hard and to discuss whatever is necessary.
I've started several topics without covering much of them e.g. for these reasons:
a. This message has approximately 1,600 words.
How long would you like my messages to be?
b. I usually start conversations, so I allow you to enrich them and to shape them to your benefit.