Gregory's Server@gerrymcgovern Good summary & I get it (and am not debating the fundamental premise that more efficient emails are a good thing). To further the study though, have you found any supporting & comparative data that contrasts how much energy would be used to transmit said information via other mechanisms? I'd be interested in seeing how the throughput of Slack
(for example) compares -- if it can be compared...
|
Top-level
 4 comments
 @CodexArcanum @dvolps and they said Slack was an email killer. Now I get slack emails reminding me to visit slack. Least damaging way to send a digital message is SMS, I’ve read @dvolps there’s so much we could do if we truly focused on reducing waste in digital design |
@dvolps @gerrymcgovern one issue with email specifically, is it only transports text-encoded data, not pure binary, so binary attachments need to be converted to base64 (and i think encoded in utf-7?), which is quite wasteful, and iirc can increase volume by 30% or so.
Also, every forward creates not one but multiple copies of the file, instead of just copying the link to the file, it is a pretty catastrophic design for file sharing.