An app which may sink email

March 25, 2015

Mar 25: People in the tech industry have been digging a grave for email for more than a decade, but their predictions have always seemed a little out of touch. Email, despite its terrible, horrible, no-good impact on our daily lives, is wonderfully ubiquitous, accessible, forgiving and still apparently a good business. In the last year, Amazon, Dropbox, Google and Microsoft have all announced new email initiatives.

Yet, despite email"s admirable endurance, it"s possible to envision a future in which email – remarkably – is supplanted by new tools that allow people to collaborate in big groups and force upon companies the sort of radical information transparency that many in the tech industry, at least, believe is essential.

sink email app

Slack is a collaboration and communication tool that has drawn inspiration from Internet Relay Chat, an early web tool that was a chat room at its core. Slack, – a start-up with an app to foster business collaboration – is valued at $1.1 billion. The best example of that new sort of communication system comes from Slack, a start-up in San Francisco. It looks similar to several other group chat apps you"ve used before – think AOL Instant Messenger or the nerdier Internet Relay Chat, better known by its initials, IRC.

But Slack has a few unusual features that make it perfectly suited for work, including automatic archiving of all your interactions, a good search engine and the ability to work across just about every device you use. Because it is hosted online and is extremely customisable, Slack is also easy for corporate technology departments to set up and maintain.

These features have helped turn Slack into one of the fastest-growing business applications in history. After only a year in operation, Slack now serves about half a million workers every day as a partial replacement for email, instant messaging and face-to-face meetings. Its base of users is doubling every three months, according to Stewart Butterfield, Slack"s co-founder and chief executive. Butterfield predicts that by the end of the year, two to three million workers around the world will be using Slack.

While the company offers a free version, it makes money by charging businesses a monthly fee of $6.50 or more per user to gain additional features. Butterfield says the company is not yet profitable, but its monthly losses are “a couple hundred thousand dollars a month,” relatively small for a start-up that employs more than 100 people. Slack raised $120 million last fall in an investment that valued the company at more than $1 billion.

Perhaps more impressive than the pace of Slack"s growth is its scope. Slack is being used as the primary means of communication at companies of every size across a range of industries. Customers include Comcast, Walmart, Blue Bottle Coffee, a large number of start-ups and several media companies, including The New York Times.

Slack is hardly alone in trying to create a better way to communicate at work. Google and Microsoft, as well as upstarts like the cloud storage provider Box, the productivity software company Quip and the project-management system Asana, are trying to do something similar. There are also several direct competitors to Slack, including HipChat.

Behind Slack"s rise is Butterfield"s grand vision for the future of the office. He is betting that solo work is on the wane and that as all of our jobs become more complex, more creative and technical feats will be accomplished by teams rather than lone practitioners. To be effective in such an environment, workers will have to become adept at navigating complex team dynamics, and doing so will depend on the sort of nuanced, intimate communication that you can"t get from email. Collaboration also demands another factor in modern workplaces, what Butterfield calls transparency.

“That can be a loaded political term, but we just mean being able to see into different parts of the organisation, which turns out to be important,” Butterfield said. Though it is possible to speak privately in Slack, by default everything you say is visible to everyone else at your company, even people in other departments – a system that Butterfield argues allows for greater collaboration across different parts of a company. Most discussions in Slack are also archived and made searchable.

As a result, over time, the chats build up into a corpus of deep historical knowledge. It is an archive that in Butterfield"s view becomes an important way for people – especially new employees – to understand what"s going on at a company. “Being able to scroll back over the last couple weeks, you get a whole bunch of "soft knowledge" about how the company operates – how people relate to one another at this company, who knows the answers to most questions, who really makes the decisions,” he said.

A communication system offering such radical transparency may shock many workers. Some may resent the idea of their bosses or far-flung colleagues peering in on their discussions. Slack drew some criticism last year when it announced that in its plans for the largest enterprises, it would let tech departments archive workers" private communications for legal compliance reasons.

Pains of adjusting

Even beyond matters of privacy, there will be pains of adjusting. Because Slack usually comes into a company that is already using email, some workers may resent it for being just another thing to check. And workers who thrived in the buttoned-up world of the well-written email may not feel as comfortable in Slack"s playground, one often dominated by constant, ubiquitous connection and the dashed-off quip accompanied by an emoji or a ridiculous animated GIF. But Butterfield"s beliefs fit with the notion, pushed by organisational scholars, that the free flow of information makes companies more effective.

“What we know about organisations in general is that the more knowledge workers have, the more likely it is they make better decisions, and the more likely it is you"ll feel invested in the work,” said James O"Toole, a professor at the University of Southern California Marshall School of Business who has studied the benefits of transparency in the workplace. The idea that workers should chat more freely has become a mainstay of Silicon Valley culture.

“Now, thanks to technology, we have almost a second layer of the business that doesn"t have a hierarchy– it"s much more of a web,” said Aaron Levie, the chief executive of Box, whose tools allow for a similar sort of sharing. “What it means is that you have to be more collaborative instead of hoarding information, which is no longer the way that you add value.”

I"ve noticed this with Slack at The Times. One danger of my job, as a columnist who works in California, is a feeling of disconnection from the mother ship in New York. Using Slack, I can peer into discussions that would never have been accessible to me. I can see how the producers and editors who are handling my column are discussing how to present it, and how the team overseeing the home page is thinking about my work.What"s more, I have a feeling of intimacy with co-workers on the other side of the country that is almost fun. That"s a big deal, for a job.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
July 24,2020

Melbourne, Jul 24: Home-made cloth face masks may need a minimum of two layers, and preferably three, to prevent the dispersal of viral droplets associated with Covid-19, according to a study.

Researchers, including those from the University of New South Wales in Australia, noted that viral droplets are generated by those infected with the novel coronavirus when they cough, sneeze, or speak.

As face masks have been proven to protect healthy people from inhaling infectious droplets as well as reducing the spread from those who are already infected, several types of material have been suggested for these, but based on little or no evidence of how well they work, the scientists said.

In the current study, published in the journal Thorax, the researchers compared the effectiveness of single and double-layer cloth face coverings with a surgical face mask (Bao Thach) at reducing droplet spread.

They said the single layer covering was made from a folded piece of cotton T shirt and hair ties, and the double layer covering was made using the sew method described by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The scientists used a tailored LED lighting system and a high-speed camera to film the dispersal of airborne droplets produced by a healthy person with no respiratory infection, during speaking, coughing, and sneezing while wearing each type of mask.

Their analysis showed that the surgical face mask was the most effective at reducing airborne droplet dispersal, although even a single layer cloth face covering reduced the droplet spread from speaking.

But the study noted that a double layer covering was better than a single layer in reducing the droplet spread from coughing and sneezing.

According to the researchers, the effectiveness of cloth face masks is dependent on the number of layers of the covering, the type of material used, design, fit as well as the frequency of washing.

Based on their observations, they said a home made cloth mask with at least two layers is preferable to a single layer mask.

"Guidelines on home-made cloth masks should stipulate multiple layers," the scientists said, adding that there is a need for more research to inform safer cloth mask design.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 17,2020

Paris, Apr 17: Even as virologists zero in on the virus that causes COVID-19, a very basic question remains unanswered: do those who recover from the disease have immunity?

There is no clear answer to this question, experts say, even if many have assumed that contracting the potentially deadly disease confers immunity, at least for a while.

"Being immunised means that you have developed an immune response against a virus such that you can repulse it," explained Eric Vivier, a professor of immunology in the public hospital system in Marseilles.

"Our immune systems remember, which normally prevents you from being infected by the same virus later on."

For some viral diseases such a measles, overcoming the sickness confers immunity for life.

But for RNA-based viruses such as Sars-Cov-2 -- the scientific name for the bug that causes the COVID-19 disease -- it takes about three weeks to build up a sufficient quantity of antibodies, and even then they may provide protection for only a few months, Vivier told AFP.

At least that is the theory. In reality, the new coronavirus has thrown up one surprise after another, to the point where virologists and epidemiologists are sure of very little.

"We do not have the answers to that -- it's an unknown," Michael Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization's Emergencies Programme said in a press conference this week when asked how long a recovered COVID-19 patient would have immunity.

"We would expect that to be a reasonable period of protection, but it is very difficult to say with a new virus -- we can only extrapolate from other coronaviruses, and even that data is quite limited."

For SARS, which killed about 800 people across the world in 2002 and 2003, recovered patients remained protected "for about three years, on average," Francois Balloux director of the Genetics Institute at University College London, said.

"One can certainly get reinfected, but after how much time? We'll only know retroactively."

A recent study from China that has not gone through peer review reported on rhesus monkeys that recovered from Sars-Cov-2 and did not get reinfected when exposed once again to the virus.

"But that doesn't really reveal anything," said Pasteur Institute researcher Frederic Tangy, noting that the experiment unfolded over only a month.

Indeed,several cases from South Korea -- one of the first countries hit by the new coronavirus -- found that patients who recovered from COVID-19 later tested positive for the virus.

But there are several ways to explain that outcome, scientists cautioned.

While it is not impossible that these individuals became infected a second time, there is little evidence this is what happened.

More likely, said Balloux, is that the virus never completely disappeared in the first place and remains -- dormant and asymptomatic -- as a "chronic infection", like herpes.

As tests for live virus and antibodies have not yet been perfected, it is also possible that these patients at some point tested "false negative" when in fact they had not rid themselves of the pathogen.

"That suggests that people remain infected for a long time -- several weeks," Balloux added. "That is not ideal."

Another pre-publication study that looked at 175 recovered patients in Shanghai showed different concentrations of protective antibodies 10 to 15 days after the onset of symptoms.

"But whether that antibody response actually means immunity is a separate question," commented Maria Van Kerhove, Technical Lead of the WHO Emergencies Programme.

"That's something we really need to better understand -- what does that antibody response look like in terms of immunity."

Indeed, a host of questions remain.

"We are at the stage of asking whether someone who has overcome COVID-19 is really that protected," said Jean-Francois Delfraissy, president of France's official science advisory board.

For Tangy, an even grimmer reality cannot be excluded.

"It is possible that the antibodies that someone develops against the virus could actually increase the risk of the disease becoming worse," he said, noting that the most serious symptoms come later, after the patient had formed antibodies.

For the moment, it is also unclear whose antibodies are more potent in beating back the disease: someone who nearly died, or someone with only light symptoms or even no symptoms at all. And does age make a difference?

Faced with all these uncertainties, some experts have doubts about the wisdom of persuing a "herd immunity" strategy such that the virus -- unable to find new victims -- peters out by itself when a majority of the population is immune.

"The only real solution for now is a vaccine," Archie Clements, a professor at Curtin University in Perth Australia, told AFP.

At the same time, laboratories are developing a slew of antibody tests to see what proportion of the population in different countries and regions have been contaminated.

Such an approach has been favoured in Britain and Finland, while in Germany some experts have floated the idea of an "immunity passport" that would allow people to go back to work.

"It's too premature at this point," said Saad Omer, a professor of infectious diseases at the Yale School of Medicine.

"We should be able to get clearer data very quickly -- in a couple of months -- when there will be reliable antibody tests with sensitivity and specificity."

One concern is "false positives" caused by the tests detecting antibodies unrelated to COVID-19.

The idea of immunity passports or certificates also raises ethical questions, researchers say.

"People who absolutely need to work -- to feed their families, for example -- could try to get infected," Balloux.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 20,2020

Washington D.C., Jan 20: An American bride asked for money from her invitees so that they can be on the 'exclusive guest list'.

Weddings can be surely expensive. But is it feasible for one to charge the guests to make up for the expenses?

According to Fox News, that is exactly what happened in a recent American wedding. A 19-year-old shared on Reddit that her cousin was getting married on Sunday and announced that she would charge 50 dollars to those who wanted to attend her wedding.

"She said that they can Venmo her money so there won't be no [sic] problems and everyone who paid will be added onto the 'exclusive guest list' which basically means you won't have to wait in line while other guests pay," wrote the user named DaintySheep.

While she refused to pay for entry into her cousin's wedding the bride-to-be contacted the elders in the family which ended up in an embarrassing situation.

"She wanted to get the money she spent on her special day back. I told her I wouldn't be able to come because this was outrageous and that I wish her well on her special day. She contacted my aunt and my aunt called me cheap and rude. My parents offered to pay for my entry, but I refused," continued the disheartened girl.

While in almost every nook and cranny of the world gifting the bride-groom with money is a tradition, asking for money from friends and family to replenish the money spent on a wedding is can be said to be a rare scenario.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.