I'd consider using a product like this and I don't give a shit about draconian politics. The issue is that remote work has downsides. One downside is dramatically less collaboration. I like collaborating with team-mates, not just drudging away by myself. If this could help create more of a spontaneous back and forth in-person feel, that could be valuable. I don't know how it would feel, I'd have to try it and see. But I think you and the other people in this thread are being way too negative and defensive. Not all of us love remote work and especially not the "remote work is better in every way for everybody and anyone who thinks otherwise is a reactionary" culture.
I keep hearing this but it makes no sense to me. If people need to collaborate, what exactly is stopping them from doing it over video? On my team we collaborate all the time remotely.
From our experience, the best collaboration doesn't happen during planned meetings. It happens during spontaneous conversations and that's what we're trying to bring back.
I kind of get that, but none of the remote collaboration I experience is done through planned meetings. It happens during conversations we have spontaneously. It's just those conversations happen over Slack and then over video call.
This isn't to say that I disbelieve your experience, but it still baffles me there are remote teams out there that fail to collaborate at a sufficient level with tools that already exist. I hope Sidekick succeeds to a level that doesn't one day turn my home office into a remote version of Office Space.
The difference is when someone starts a call or an IM, its usually about something specific and so the expectation is that the conversation lasts just as long as it takes to resolve the specific issue. Spontaneity of conversation requires a culture of interaction without a specific aim. In an environment where you want to maximize such spontaneous connections, calls or IMs can't compare to always-on.
Yep, feels like they've fallen over on the whole 'define a problem' thing. Have they got any actual clients or just a bunch of fellow cohort YC companies all clapping each other on the back.
> One downside is dramatically less collaboration.
This is simply an excuse for why remote doesn't work. It's a dead horse. If you find yourself collaborating less as a result of remote work, then I question your remote setup and culture.
> If this could help create more of a spontaneous back and forth in-person feel.
I actually feel less shitty by spontaneously reaching out to my colleagues via Slack or by phone when remote than I do tapping on their shoulder in an office.
> But I think you and the other people in this thread are being way too negative and defensive.
I wouldn't say my comment was that negative. This device is a threat to the upside of remote working, so it should be met with criticism. That doesn't mean I wish them any ill will. My biggest issue with something like this is that a device is now required for remote work and you must sit at your computer from 9am to 5pm. That's why a lot of people hate working from an office, so to recreate that at home would be a nightmare.
Thanks for the feedback, we're still really early so this datapoint is really helpful.
Sidekick works really well for teams that need to be always communicating real-time. This isn't all remote teams, but the subset that needs this is underserved and we're trying to help with Sidekick.
>> If you find yourself collaborating less as a result of remote work, then I question your remote setup and culture.
Ah yes, the old "you're doing it wrong retort". Blaming the person who doesn't conform to your ideals, or has had different results is perhaps an even older, dead horse. See also: agile zealot.
It would be Orwellian if imposed by employers, of course. But for teams who really would prefer to be colocated, why shouldn't they use something like this as a next-best option? It should be up to the users.
I'm sure they are, but the opposite is also true: every disordered regime or pressured state points to foreign interference as the reason for strife. There are distortions in both directions and not really any reliable information.
The mainstream media seems shockingly Soviet now, too, perhaps with the difference that more people still believe it. Do you agree? I'd like to hear your comparison.
One difference from the USSR is that there remain plenty of alternative sources on the margins. They're shut out of the mainstream, but they're a lot more accessible than samizdat. It will be interesting to see if they get shut down. I don't think they will. I don't think the future is full-Soviet, but it may be neo-Soviet. We've come further in that direction already than anyone expected.
Another difference from the USSR is that it's a binary system (Dems vs. Repubs, CNN vs. Fox) rather than a monolithic one.
Well, history doesn't repeat itself exactly, so current situation is very different in details but it's basically the same. Samizdat of these days is much more accessible indeed.
To me Dems/Repubs, CNN/Fox look the same, just different wings of the same bird.
Max from Oakland didn't think it was irrelevant to the topic at hand. Shouldn't he be heard? He belongs to the population being discriminated against. To me that makes his perspective relevant, and I can't see by what logic it wouldn't be, except conformity enforcement, which is scary and not likely to end well.
Bringing up concentration camps in that way is just a way of assuming your conclusion.
I'm not asking a rhetorical question, genuinely interested in how you see this. It doesn't seem like to me like he falls in any of the categories you listed. Same with Lee Fang, the interviewer who got attacked for publishing Max's remarks.
Have you seen the news show "Rising"? They have been staking out this space for about a year now. Taibbi and Greenwald appear there regularly. This show is probably the most interesting new development in American political media. The hosts have jokingly described their philosophy as "let's hate each other less and elites more", and present as a mostly-friendly pair of left and right populists.
They were on Joe Rogan recently (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA9Tpf5Uuxs), so their audience will probably spike. I find that even when I don't agree with them, their smartness is usually a breath of fresh air from the fetid stupidities of the mainstream (both left and right) media. It will be interesting to see how long it lasts, and whether they will continue to be able to work together. Regardless of whether one agrees, they're managing to host a freer discussion for the time being.
I can't take Taibbi and Greenwald's antagonism against "elites" seriously when they take every chance possible to defend the actions of a billionaire President and his billionaire-stuff Cabinet.
That's so far from accurate that I'm not sure how you got there. Both are squarely on the left and abhor Trump. Chomsky calls Greenwald his close friend, for example, and Taibbi wrote a book called "Insane Clown President" and was one of the strongest journalistic critics of the financial system.
