Research suggests that poor audio quality during video calls can negatively impact how others perceive us. A study found that "tinny" or distorted audio leads to participants being judged as less competent, less influential, and less likeable, regardless of the actual quality of their contributions. This "zoom bias" stems from our brains associating poor sound with lower status, mirroring how we perceive voices in the natural world. This effect can have significant consequences in professional settings, potentially hindering career advancement and impacting team dynamics.
Modern websites, bloated with JavaScript and complex designs, are increasingly demanding on older PC hardware. This makes browsing with older machines a slow and frustrating experience, effectively rendering them obsolete for general internet use, even if they are perfectly capable of handling other tasks. The video demonstrates this by comparing the performance of a modern high-end PC with older machines, highlighting the significant difference in loading times and resource usage when browsing current websites. This trend pushes users towards newer hardware, contributing to e-waste even when older machines are still functionally viable for less demanding applications.
Hacker News users discussed the challenges of running modern web browsers on older hardware. Several commenters pointed to the increasing bloat and resource demands of browsers like Chrome and Firefox, making them unusable on machines that could otherwise handle less demanding tasks. Some suggested that the shift to web apps contributes to the problem, blurring the lines between simple websites and full-fledged applications. Others recommended lightweight alternatives like Pale Moon or using a lightweight OS to extend the life of older machines. The idea of planned obsolescence was also raised, with some speculating that browser developers intentionally allow performance to degrade on older hardware. A few users pushed back, arguing that web development advancements often benefit users and that supporting older systems indefinitely isn't feasible.
The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) is discreetly funding community-owned fiber optic networks, bringing affordable, high-speed internet access to underserved areas. These networks offer gigabit speeds for just $50-$65 per month, significantly undercutting incumbent ISPs often providing slower speeds at higher prices. This funding is helping bridge the digital divide by empowering communities to build and control their own internet infrastructure, fostering local economic development and improving access to essential services.
Hacker News commenters generally lauded the ARPA-funded community-owned fiber initiatives. Several pointed out the significant difference between publicly owned/community-owned networks and the usual private ISP model, highlighting the potential for better service, lower prices, and local control. Some expressed concerns about the long-term sustainability and scalability of these projects, questioning whether the initial funding would be enough and if these smaller networks could compete with established giants. Others noted the importance of community engagement and technical expertise for success. A recurring theme was the frustration with existing ISPs and their perceived lack of investment in underserved areas, with commenters expressing hope that these community projects could serve as a model for broader change. Several commenters also discussed the regulatory hurdles and lobbying power of incumbent ISPs, emphasizing the need for continued public support and advocacy for these alternative models.
People without smartphones face increasing disadvantages in daily life as essential services like banking, healthcare, and parking increasingly rely on app-based access. Campaigners argue this digital exclusion unfairly penalizes vulnerable groups, including the elderly, disabled, and low-income individuals who may not be able to afford or operate a smartphone. This "app tyranny" limits access to basic services, creating a two-tiered system and exacerbating existing inequalities. They call for alternative access options to ensure inclusivity and prevent further marginalization of those without smartphones.
Hacker News commenters largely agree that over-reliance on smartphones creates unfair disadvantages for those without them, particularly regarding essential services and accessibility. Several point out the increasing difficulty of accessing healthcare, banking, and government services without a smartphone. Some commenters suggest this trend is driven by cost-cutting measures disguised as "convenience" and highlight the digital divide's impact on vulnerable populations. Others discuss the privacy implications of mandatory app usage and the lack of viable alternatives for those who prefer not to use smartphones. A few argue that while some inconvenience is inevitable with technological advancement, essential services should offer alternative access methods. The lack of meaningful competition in the mobile OS market is also mentioned as a contributing factor to the problem.
Summary of Comments ( 105 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43495465
HN users discuss various aspects of audio quality affecting perceived competence in video calls. Several point out that poor audio makes it harder to understand speech, thus impacting the listener's perception of the speaker's intelligence. Some commenters highlight the class disparity exacerbated by differing audio quality, with those lacking high-end equipment at a disadvantage. Others suggest the issue isn't solely audio, but also includes video quality and internet stability. A few propose solutions, like better noise-cancellation algorithms and emphasizing good meeting etiquette. Finally, some note that pre-recorded, edited content further skews perceptions of "professionalism" compared to the realities of live communication.
The Hacker News post titled "Zoom bias: The social costs of having a 'tinny' sound during video conferences" has a moderate number of comments discussing the linked article's findings. Several compelling threads of conversation emerge.
Some users corroborate the study's findings with their own anecdotal experiences. One commenter mentions that they consciously try to make their audio sound better for important meetings, acknowledging the perceived link between audio quality and perceived competence. Others describe situations where poor audio quality has led to miscommunication, frustration, and a diminished perception of the speaker. These personal accounts lend credence to the study's claims, highlighting the real-world impact of "tinny" audio.
Another line of discussion revolves around the technical reasons behind poor audio quality and potential solutions. Commenters discuss the limitations of built-in laptop microphones and the benefits of using external microphones, headsets, and noise-cancelling software. Some also point out the role of internet bandwidth and connection stability in affecting audio quality. This technical discussion offers practical advice for mitigating the issues raised in the article.
A few commenters express skepticism about the study's methodology and generalizability. They question whether the specific audio manipulations used in the study accurately reflect real-world scenarios and if the results can be extrapolated to broader populations. This critical perspective adds nuance to the discussion, encouraging a more cautious interpretation of the study's conclusions.
Finally, some comments touch on the broader implications of the study's findings, connecting them to existing biases related to accents, speech impediments, and technological access. This broader perspective highlights the potential for audio quality to exacerbate existing inequalities and emphasizes the importance of addressing these issues in a thoughtful and equitable manner. The conversation also touches upon the increasing importance of audio quality in the modern workplace and the need for employers to provide adequate resources to ensure clear communication.