Login

Our team went remote last year and we've been struggling with collaboration software. Everything we try either has too many features that nobody uses or too few to be useful. What collaboration software have you found that strikes the right balance? We need something for document sharing, real-time editing, and communication without feeling like we're drowning in notifications.

For remote teams that don't want to be overwhelmed, I recommend Twist by Doist. It's asynchronous by design, which reduces notification fatigue. Threaded conversations keep discussions organized, and the calm interface doesn't encourage constant checking. It's perfect for teams that want collaboration without the chaos of real-time chat.

We use Notion for collaboration and it's been perfect for finding that balance. It combines docs, tasks, and databases in one place, so we're not switching between multiple tools. The permission controls let us share what's needed without overwhelming people. The learning curve is worth it for the reduction in tool sprawl.

Google Workspace strikes a good balance for us. Docs, Sheets, and Slides for real-time collaboration, combined with Google Chat for communication. The integration means everything works together seamlessly, and most people already know how to use the basic features. The simplicity reduces the learning curve and adoption resistance.

I’ve been trying to wrap my head around why the concept of relativistic mass has largely fallen out of favor in modern physics texts. In my undergrad, we used it to understand momentum at high velocities, but now the emphasis is solely on invariant mass and the four-momentum formalism. The shift in teaching this feels a bit confusing when trying to reconcile old and new explanations.

I remember undergrad days when we were told to use relativistic mass as speed increased; it felt like it gave intuition, but later texts warned it could mislead.

Now I mainly teach four-momentum and invariant mass; we stress E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m c^2)^2 and that the mass of a particle is the same in every frame.

In the lab, students ask if mass grows with velocity; I tell them mass is a fixed property m0 and the energy and momentum grow with gamma.

I tried to keep it practical: picture a particle in a box; you compute gamma from velocity and then energy from gamma m0 c^2; some kids still glaze over.

One time I ran a quick simulation plotting p vs v for a fixed m0; the slope bends as gamma climbs; it felt useful but left some people uneasy.

Sometimes I worry the shift away from the older phrasing leaves newcomers with less intuition about how energy scales; on the other hand it avoids taut contradictions.

Do you think the real problem is the language we use, or is there a deeper misalignment between old intuition and modern formalism?

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me