Every single org I’ve seen using teams (sample size of 4-5 orgs) uses it because it came for free. And every one of them also got slack and paid for it.
That says everything about how shitty Teams STILL is. MS still hasn’t improved it much from the steady state turd that it’s been a few years ago.
It’s so funny. My company is basically merger hell and we have both Teams and Slack for similar reasons.
One of the more important acquired companies with a cash cow product basically refused to move to Teams because they hate it and concocted a reason that we just had to keep it.
The reason was total BS but it was crafted to appeal to the higher-ups, and it worked, because nobody was really going to fight over less than ten bucks per person per month.
Nobody really likes Teams, but it does seem to have more features than Slack in terms of integration with the rest of Microsoft's office software ecosystem. It's nice to be able to open up and edit Word/PowerPoint/Excel documents directly, view the Outlook calendar directly, etc. It is also integrated with SharePoint and OneDrive for file storage. Teams had video calls before Slack as well IIRC.
Teams, Slack and Discord all seem to be built as clunky web apps; but my experience is that Discord seems to work slightly better than Slack, which in turn works slightly better than Teams.
If, knowing what you know now, you could go back in time and be the one to create Slack would you not do it? Even if everyone is using Teams now (they're not), it took a really long time to show up that Slack's founders were able to capitalize on.
The change in the software landscape today is the apparent ability to develop a competitor faster thanks to LLMs. But, as the parent points out, the bottleneck was never code writing. It was waiting on the people involved to get past their egos. LLMs have done nothing to change that.
I found myself switching a lot between apps to get the same info, lots of copy/pasting.
Example, URLs in bookmark (which I forget about), project descriptions , images, folders.
So I built a Mac app that is similar to Raycast, but just for notes. If I want to save a webpage, I click control+option+C and then a window pops up to describe it.
If I press control+option+V, I get a spotlight like window where it does full-text search of all my notes and descriptions and filter so I can either:
- Open
- Insert the data into the current app (chrome, slack, ChatGPT).
I’ve been using it for a few weeks now, and not sure if others will find it useful.
And what kind of skills would you test with this method?
Colleges are clearly not working, as evidenced by the number of unemployed graduates. Some will blame AI, but the reality is that any graduate would require training to be productive in the job, something they didn't learn in college.
My point is, if colleges could adapt to the job market, they wouldn't be in their current state.
At some point in my life, schools got tasked with teaching everything you need as a person. Things your parents or a business or the community or your employer taught you.
I don't know when, but it wasn't always like this.
The education industry actively tried to get all this "stuff" assigned to it because more stuff -> more activity -> more money flow -> the cut you skim becomes bigger.
It doesn't help that our tax system actively incentivizes bringing everything you can under the umbrella of any institution that is nominally nonprofit.
You're just patently wrong on your first point. Schools and educators do not want to have to teach every life skill imaginable. They are trained in content areas, like science, math, and literacy. The extra stuff has historically been forced on schools by parents via elected officials and state/federal mandates. Also, unfunded mandates are wildly popular in education legislation. More requirements doesn't necessarily mean more money. And finally, are you claiming that educators want more money for schools specifically so they can steal (cut you skim) the extra funds? That is just absurd and completely asinine.
I'm also not sure what your second point has to do with anything. Could you please explain what that means?
Lol. "Schools and educators" don't want massive football programs either yet what do they have?
There is no way an honest person can look at the situation and come up with an opinion like yours. College education is run by MBAs looking at spreadsheets and projecting out a quarter or three like everything else these days. Colleges are (well maybe not all of them) megacorps that happen to be schools and happen to have funky tax rules. They're mission driven nonprofits to the same degree that hospitals are.
> Colleges are clearly not working, as evidenced by the number of unemployed graduates.
What are you talking about? College-educated unemployment is 2.9% while for highschool-only it's 4.4%. Neither is high, but college-educated is definitely lower.
I plan on a mix of conceptual questions, pseudocode and code annotation. I think this may be on of those historical ironies where the slowness of universities to adapt actually works in its favor. I do agree that most universities do a bad job of preparing computer science students and I’m working to fix that as best I can where I teach. We will see how things pan out.
Students shop for colleges based more on the amenities and party atmosphere than then average salary of those who graduated 10 years prior. This also shows up in grade inflation. Students want easy classes and colleges want happy customers.
One example is Microsoft creating teams to take on Slack.
reply