Organic unpaid sponsorship plug:#0250 2026-06-17 lemonmama.com By author Morgan Jassen Telemeeting Prerecorded Video - False Dichotomy 004 A telemeeting is actually a prerecorded video. prerecorded 50ms prior, but prerecorded nonetheless.thus only 10% of the fidelity, versus an in-person meeting which has 100% fidelity of rich human communication (body language etc) and so building on this. If someone asks me to join a telemeeting / zoom meeting, then, I can say like, '...I don't want to communicate by pre-recorded one-way video messages, so no thanks, but if you want to do an in-person meeting then that sounds good. ...' building on this. it's a double whammy. Not only is 90% of the fidelity lost through human body language, etc. But also, that 50ms lag, both way, each time, feels like it compounds. so 50ms per second, would amount to 5% of the time wasted. That 5% is what makes these one-way prerecorded videos not realtime communication. So each time someone speaks, it's more like 95% is lost and only 5% is communicated. And the longer the meeting, the more time is wasted. Ok so I can make a use case then. For very short meetings when only a few back-and forth messages are needed to be communicated. Then video-call seems appropriate. Or for meetings, again short ones, where not much speaking is needed but one needs to see low-resolution images and moving-images, then video-call could be appropriate. Also I can't deny video-call can eliminate driving/commuting time if that is needed. Ok so let me redo this. Video-call is basically like a phone call with videos. Phone calls always suffered the same thing. But they had some advantages. So video call has its places and values mentioned above. And phone calls (voice calls) also have their place and their values. However for real rich human communication on actual important topics on issues that matter to humans, then in-person meeting is 95% better. In other words for long important meetings, if you round to the nearest 10%, I argue that video-meetings are 0% effective and in-person meetings are 100% effective. Whereas, even if you rounding, then for short calls (calls, not meetings), especially across long distances and where visual/video/pictures are needed, then a video-call can be very effective. Aha! another false dichotomy exposed! Also exposed the word "meeting" vs. "call" because meetings are always more important by definition so should always be in person. Whereas calls refer to phone calls, which are already known to be better to be shorter duration and over longer distances. Side note: wow just imagine when the telephone was gaining popularity and phone calls co-opted the word 'call' from an in-person house call. I bet people back then went through this same wrenching process to decide whether/how/which business to do via phone call vs. in-person call. In conclusion, a telemeeting like a zoom call, is really a series of one-way pre-recorted video messages. Not a realtime meeting. However that may also be a false dichotomy. Because for shorter calls maybe a series of quick one-way pre-recorded video messages may be very valuable. But also don't forget that for a real in-person meeting it has 100% fidelity so it is ultra-valuable and without peer. So but the false dichotomy is, why not both? Telemeeting for times when short calls are valuable, and in-person meeting for times when in-person fidelity is valuable. nice. See also: #0249 - Pet Peeve。 Song Tracks With Layers。 Result is Sly False Dichotomy 003。 | https://lemonmama.com/lemonmama/2026/0249%20song%20tracks%20with%20layers.html #0200 - Meeting Means Zoom Call in 2026 | https://lemonmama.com/lemonmama/2026/0200%20meeting%20means%20zoom%20call.html #0161 - Morgan's Law of Zoom Meetings | https://lemonmama.com/lemonmama/2025/0161%20morgans%20law%20zoom%20meetings.html ~
OMGWTFBBq1?!! Try GNU Jami Peer-to-peer Messaging app!!? | https://jami.net/