Bailin
https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-64-mike-rowes-koc...
And please don't say something like "do your own research," that doesn't help the conversation at all.
That being said, it looks like the article has been updated to use new numbers now.
Isn't that actually $10,000, or is there some startup valuation math that I'm not aware of?
EDIT the article has since been updated with new numbers, and the math now works out as expected
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/10/26/661163105/epis...
That is a strange/dangerous position to take. You seem to be saying that this one company's current implementation of mostly text chat is the best possible way to communicate.
| If you have a noise problem is because you have a system that pushes information to its users faster than they can consume it
I also disagree slightly here. Users don't need to consume all information that they have access to. It's okay to dismiss notifications without reading their content, if you can determine it's noise for you. But the problem with channels/room-focused chat services is that they tend to have a few fixed number of channels, and users have to scan/read through content to determine if there's any signal in there.
To me, that seems to be the core differentiator of Zulip. For example if I've been gone for a few hours or few days, I can quickly see that I can dismiss conversations in streams like Dev/lunch-ideas, but I might choose to read up on Dev/prod-outages. In most/current chat services, all that conversation would be mixed up in the same room/chat history.
EDIT: Another way to think about it is that people have conversations, but most chat services only gives you rooms. People generally only care about some of the conversations that takes place in some of the rooms, so low signal to noise ratio. Most chat services leaves it to the user to deal with that, eg make a new room per new conversation. Zulip offers another, perhaps more user-friendly way.