I would try, for 10 minutes, the following solution: you listen to the lecture and repeat every word the lecturer said. Then use the record of your voice for the voice 2 text process.
If it works, do it for the whole talk.
The STAR format is a structured manner of responding to a behavioral-based interview question by discussing the specific situation, task, action, and result of the situation you are describing. Here's what each component stands for:
1. *Situation*: Set the context for your story. Describe the event or situation that you were in. This could be from a previous job, from a volunteer experience, or any relevant event.
2. *Task*: After describing the situation, you talk about the actual task or challenge that was involved. This is the problem or issue that you were confronted with.
3. *Action*: Explain the actions you took to address the situation or task. This should be a detailed account of how you tackled the problem.
4. *Result*: Share the outcomes or results of the actions you took. Ideally, this should be a positive outcome that demonstrates how you effectively handled the situation.
Using the STAR format in a career document helps to clearly and effectively convey your accomplishments in a way that highlights your problem-solving and task management skills.
You are not alone in believing creative work and collaboration are much more difficult in a remote environment.
But yesterday I watched the movie "A dangerous method" about Jung, Freud, and Sabina Spielrein. Well, at the time, collaboration was via paper mail. And my feeling is that they were more creative than we are.
I'm not suggesting to go paper mail, but I couldn't help but observe this fact.
Unfortunately I think remote work is the worst of both worlds by comparison.
IMO collaborating via paper isn't about the actual medium of communication, it's time and freedom. When every reply takes at least a few days to arrive to you you've got enormous space for experimentation, even if only in your own head. Meanwhile in remote work world we're plugged into video conference meetings multiple times a day. There isn't a lot of mental space.
You are comparing synchronous and asynchronous work, not in-person and remote. There's no reason remote work needs to involve multiple meetings a day, just like there's nothing preventing your boss from requiring multiple meetings a day when working in person.
In fact, remote work is usually more asynchronous than in-person when it's a core part of how a company works. Remote-first companies might have people working in 3 timezones with 8 hours between each of them (I've been in this situation), so meetings are a pain in the ass for everyone and everything that can possibly be done via email or other tools, is.
That’s an interesting hypothesis. I could see how paper mail, by virtue of forcing you to put extreme effort into clarity and thoroughness, could spark some novel thinking. On the other hand, as much as I think I work with great people, I doubt they’re all great in the level of those three!
It's a little more nuanced. Causation can be inferred in an experimental design. If the researchers can manipulate the independent variable (the vaccine) using an experimental and a placebo group, and then they can measure a statistically (and clinically) significant difference, then we can assume that this is not just correlation.
> I don't think using intuitive associations with words helps clarify things
Sincere question: do you think that "think using intuitive associations with words" can be safely translated to "compute using intuitive associations with words"?
I don't think so. Therefore, even if thinking is also computing, reducing thinking to boolean algebra is a form of reductionism that ignores a number of emergent properties of (human) thinking.
The intuitive model associated with some variable/word as a concept relates to other structures/models/systems that it interfaces with. Just because the operator that accesses these models with rather vague keys (words) has no clear picture of what exactly is being computed on the surface, doesn't mean that the totality of the process is not computation. It just means that the emergent properties are not mapped into the semantic space which the operator (our attention mechanisms) operates on. From my understanding, the totality I just referred to is a graph-space, it doesn't escape mathematics. Then again, I can't know or claim to do so.
