I could not clean information to get a picture what is the percieved problem. The closest I got was guessing that the game Uplink had a mission trakcing system that was a mission per email.
If someone tells you to do something you can exercise your own judgement whether you will do it. If a person tells you to jump into a well and you do jump into a well the problem is not that people are able to talk to you (unrestrictidly) but that you are way too suggestible than is good for your own health.
You can say no. You can control who you reveal your which email address to. You can control what kind of connectivity you ask for. (I have to pay because you lack filtering skills?)
It’s also weird that burning social capital is undesirable but burning money would be. And the moloch toolbox link mainly adviced to the contrary. The “magic tower” metaphor critises that just taking 4 years off people is not a good way to select employess. It would seem you need to believe that burning $1 or $10 would somehow make the content more quality? It would also seem that paying to cry wolf would be a more tempting joke as more extreme reactions would be expected (and the cost being “adequate compensation” for the disruption, there was a phenomenon where making a trivial cost on picking your kids late from kindergarden made the parents late more and not sorry).
There could be something interesting about how mechanics of email leads to “drive-by-burdening” where you skip the negotiation phase whether some committed can be formed and just simply proceed to assume that it will be done. But I would asssume the solution or problem formulation would be more social or communication centric. And would guess the solutions could be “stop making everyone your boss, make commitments that you don’t plan on keeping (spam your business card with email on it to ‘network’ and then not wanting to reply when people use it, are you in or out in this networking thing?) and avoid legimate turning down just because it’s icky”. And in the case of your actual employer boss leaving too much emails a line of “you have to talk about overburdening with management and be prepared to leave employement that doesn’t fit your life”
I also have a bad feeling about baggage that economical thinking will bring with it. It is dissatisying to me that the reservations are nebolous to me. But if communication is free I can focus on whether the idea has merit, on paid communication I might tend to shift to a frame where I “assume merit” rather than “verify merit”. And rather than being confident in my communication because I speak the truth I could be confident because of sunk-cost fallacies etc.
I could not clean information to get a picture what is the percieved problem. The closest I got was guessing that the game Uplink had a mission trakcing system that was a mission per email.
If someone tells you to do something you can exercise your own judgement whether you will do it. If a person tells you to jump into a well and you do jump into a well the problem is not that people are able to talk to you (unrestrictidly) but that you are way too suggestible than is good for your own health.
You can say no. You can control who you reveal your which email address to. You can control what kind of connectivity you ask for. (I have to pay because you lack filtering skills?)
It’s also weird that burning social capital is undesirable but burning money would be. And the moloch toolbox link mainly adviced to the contrary. The “magic tower” metaphor critises that just taking 4 years off people is not a good way to select employess. It would seem you need to believe that burning $1 or $10 would somehow make the content more quality? It would also seem that paying to cry wolf would be a more tempting joke as more extreme reactions would be expected (and the cost being “adequate compensation” for the disruption, there was a phenomenon where making a trivial cost on picking your kids late from kindergarden made the parents late more and not sorry).
There could be something interesting about how mechanics of email leads to “drive-by-burdening” where you skip the negotiation phase whether some committed can be formed and just simply proceed to assume that it will be done. But I would asssume the solution or problem formulation would be more social or communication centric. And would guess the solutions could be “stop making everyone your boss, make commitments that you don’t plan on keeping (spam your business card with email on it to ‘network’ and then not wanting to reply when people use it, are you in or out in this networking thing?) and avoid legimate turning down just because it’s icky”. And in the case of your actual employer boss leaving too much emails a line of “you have to talk about overburdening with management and be prepared to leave employement that doesn’t fit your life”
I also have a bad feeling about baggage that economical thinking will bring with it. It is dissatisying to me that the reservations are nebolous to me. But if communication is free I can focus on whether the idea has merit, on paid communication I might tend to shift to a frame where I “assume merit” rather than “verify merit”. And rather than being confident in my communication because I speak the truth I could be confident because of sunk-cost fallacies etc.