The point of the article is not "how to do it", but rather to observe that this kind of thing, previously a (relatively) niche concern, has become important to a general audience. The article even suggests that there's a business opportunity for fashion businesses to create tailored videoconferencing spaces, which is predicated on the notion that most people lack the time or inclination to set up their own bespoke setup (including lighting, cameras, audio, and so on).
The takeaway is meant to be that videoconferencing has reached a point of cultural importance where it has become hard to take a public figure seriously if they have a poor setup, in much the same way that it would be hard to take a poorly-dressed person seriously. Much as people experiment with clothing as a means of signalling status and personality, one's videoconferencing setup becomes a new way of signalling these things. It's all fairly obvious, but it's still not something that I have spent much time thinking about, and a how-to guide would probably not prompt me to think about the social and cultural aspects nearly so much.
A lot of serious, famous people live in grand, nice houses in older neighborhoods with hopelessly oversubscribed Comcast. The CEO of my Fortune 500 company presented at a remote all-hands at about 0.25 frames/second. Now at that level, maybe you can spend the $10 million it would take to pull fiber to your house. But we’re not taking about buying some prosumer electronics here, we’re talking years of permitting and digging up the street. For mid-tier famous people the only hope they have of getting better upload bandwidth is moving to houses that already have it. That’s a bit more dramatic than going to a clothing store.
I find it shocking that bad uplink in private homes is still a problem in the US. In times where a good proportion of public life happens on the web, most of shopping is done online, and media are dominated by streaming, why do people not run rampant against the lack of a decent wired uplink?
Most of the web works fine with a fast link _to_ your home, so that's what Comcast et al have optimized for. I had to upgrade during Covid to get a decent upload rate. Speedtest says I now have 238Mbps down/12Mbps up. For comparison my office has 100Mbps up and down and has never felt slow for downloads.
Yeah. People with a spare room can spend thousands of dollars decking out a studio just so. But a lot of that money is pretty much wasted if they have glitchy Internet and there's not much they can do about other than renting a private office that has good Internet (which is probably an OK option for mid-tier famous people if they live near a city or other area with good network infrastructure).
This seems like a sort of roundabout reinvention of the television network. There are already buildings in every population center where famous people go to make their broadcast appearances.
Over a year ago now I had commented that it's funny watching the TV networks struggle to figure out what teenagers on TikTok had dialed in: Their streaming setups.
I imagined that the broadcasters, when they had to switch to remote, had video and audio engineers you could put together a kit for their stars. But for a while it seemed like so many were "You have a laptop with a camera and mic Good to go!"
I was an organizer for a major ACM conference last year, and I really struggled with my home video streaming setup. A lot of equipment was sold out last year. I followed the recommendation of some YouTubers and realized that this is not as simple as it seems. Despite realizing the importance of a live stream setup and investing in it, I'm pretty unhappy with the results. Thankfully we are out of the worst of the pandemic .. but I agree that a good home streaming setup will be important going forward.
Edit: one thing I never figured out how to solve was removing glare on my glasses (either monitor glare or from key lights). Best investment was an external microphone and a few items mounted on the wall behind me (which used to be bare).
For the glasses glare I found a few things that help:
- Turn down display brightness
- Dark mode everywhere possible
- Block direct sunlight (blinds/curtains or rotate desk)
- Illuminate the rest of your face to reduce the contrast from glasses
If you use a terminal for most things, including notes, one thing that helps a lot is to use a semi-transparent black background and position the terminal window over the meeting display.
Yeah, I don't bother day to day but, if I'm recording video, I have a couple different pieces of fabric that I can use to control the light coming in the windows--which also have shades--depending upon how sunny it is outside.
For glasses glare a couple of things: First, a circular polarizing filter can help. Second "key lights" don't have to just be your monitor. You can dark mode the monitor you have in line with camera and leave it at low brightness, then bring in the primary lighting from the side (another monitor, or a cheap/home-made soft box would work - a diffuse desk lamp may serve well, or a strong harsher light bounced off a white wall ). You can't stop light reflecting off your glasses, but you can make sure most of it doesn't bounce into your camera.
Not if you go very directional on the light you may need something to fill from the other side so you don't get strong shadows. One source should be ok if you only give enough angle to loose the reflection.
I wonder if using a polarizing filter over your webcam would reduce the glare from your glasses. Polarizing sunglasses very effectively reduce glare on water, as well as car windshields.
For glasses glare you can use soft lights (large, non directional lights, like lamps with large shades or harder lights bounced off of a white wall) on each side of your face, much more to the left and right than normal - almost perpendicular to your nose, just slightly in front of your face. It's a nontraditional setup.
> in much the same way that it would be hard to take a poorly-dressed person seriously
The sooner we can get over this obsession with people dressed "nicely" and instead listen to people who know what they are talking about, the better.
Any monkey can wear a jacket and tie. I hate that society automatically elevates well dressed people the way it does. To me it only signals that they have money.
It signals that they have money... and/or high conscientiousness—you can fake that with enough money, to e.g. pay for someone to entirely take care of having your clothes clean and ready on-time and waiting right where you need them, of course, but for anyone other than the "employ multiple full-time people as 'help'"-rich, fine clothes require more care and attention from the wearer than a hoodie and jeans.
Wearing fine clothes that fit well, and not looking uncomfortable in them, also signals that effort (not just money—though, again, at the higher end of the scale, as with everything else, money can replace effort) was put into finding that good fit, and that one puts in the extra work to dress well often enough to feel at-ease being so dressed.
It signals awareness that people treat the well-dressed better than the poorly-dressed, and both willingness and ability to follow through on that knowledge.
Then, of course, yes, clothes signal group membership. So do $120 hoodies and $400 Scandanavian high-performance light outdoor jackets and $90 hiking pants and $150 selvedge high-weight jeans and $350 impractical, throwback work boots, and shit, those aren't even the expensive side of tech-nerd signal-wear. Of course the people buying those are doing it because the items are "high quality", not to fit in with and signal among their peers. Clearly.
> Wearing fine clothes that fit well, and not looking uncomfortable in them, also signals that effort (not just money..)
Having the time to put in that effort requires some amount of money. To afford to have someone take care of the kids for a bit, or to pay someone to work on your car on the weekend instead of fixing it yourself.
It takes money to have the free time so you can spend the time clothes shopping instead of doing life maintenance.
Clothing, second hand, is pretty much worthless. It also offers a much larger selection compared to just than what is hip today (uhh all black? white cloths forbidden?) which allows you to create your own style for next to nothing. Just ask the article of clothing if its you and listen to what it says.
A guy once pointed around the room and described what 20 people were wearing, where they bought it, what it costs, how fashionable he considered it. I ask him what I was wearing. He said: I have no idea! Its so wrong that it works, its more refined than everything in the room. I cant imagine spending more than 10 euro on the set (shoes aside)
> I cant imagine spending more than 10 euro on the set (shoes aside)
Indeed, for men, shoes are the hardest part to work around on a budget. Cheap looks cheap (and tends to fall apart really fast) and used is rarely actually cheap unless they're so beat up that, at best, you can manage smart-casual out of them. You can save money buying used, but "cheap" is practically unattainable.
The materials (leather, mostly) are just too expensive for actually-cheap men's shoes to be A Thing, at least for mainstream looks which basically all require leather shoes above a very-casual register. Even alternative fashions usually find a way for it to be hard to get away with cheap shoes, it seems (much "street" fashion, for example) usually subbing in expensive casual styles (pricey sneaker, or conspicuous-consumption work or military boot styles) for the oxford or loafer or whatever.
Yes—as with everything else one may wish to do, it's easier to dress well the more money you have, and it's very hard for single parents with two jobs to do it (again, like everything else). That's true.
Yes. So placing higher value on people based on how they dress is a garbage practice used to profile people with poorer backgrounds and limit their social mobility, keep them out of better jobs, keep them out of upwardly mobile roles like management.
It's "learn to play the fashion game or get fucked"
Sure, but we the same applies to any other skill or practice. Like learning to program. Or bathing. Or showing up to work on time (a much, much bigger problem than, say, not owning a suit, for the actually-poor—ask them, or their employers, and you'll get an earful).
In the case of management, specifically, I'd think if someone's reached the point where they have a realistic shot at a management position, but haven't figured out they need to dress for it, and also found the time & willpower to do so, that's signaling working as intended. Any of several causes for that would be a good reason to think twice about putting that person in management. Meanwhile, anyone who cares can dress plenty well enough to start in a lower-level management position by hitting Goodwill or eBay and dropping low-hundreds of dollars, which isn't nothing (I'm aware—I'm familiar with tracking the costs of groceries while shopping to make sure you won't overdraft, or only getting 5 gallons of gas because you can't afford more until next week, et c.), but that's a pretty damn low admissions price compared to, IDK, college, which is usually also required to take the easy route to management.
There's a pretty big gap between middle-management dressy, and having enough bespoke suits to wear a different one every weekday and switch them out seasonally. The former's not exactly a high bar, compared to all kinds of other costs and time-sinks that are associated with being employable. Once you're "in" then yeah, maybe costs increase somewhat if you want to improve your chances of both being effective and moving up, but at that point you're... in management, so that shouldn't be some kind of huge hurdle anymore.
> In the case of management, specifically, I'd think if someone's reached the point where they have a realistic shot at a management position, but haven't figured out they need to dress for it, and also found the time & willpower to do so, that's signaling working as intended
It's signalling working as intended from the perspective of people who think they can tell everything they need to know about someone by how they dress.
And they're wrong. Every single one of them.
It allows a certain group to continue favoring their own group, or force people to conform to their group before being considered.
How you dress says nothing concrete about your ability to function as a human, as a worker, or a manager of people.
It is just another aspect of how attractive people get preference in society. We have to shed this eventually.
> It's signalling working as intended from the perspective of people who think they can tell everything they need to know about someone by how they dress.
Everything? No. It's a somewhat noisy signal. It is a signal, though, and absolutely does carry useful information. For instance, the poorly-dressed are one of, or some combination of: poor; ignorant of fashion; aware of fashion, but nonetheless not putting effort into it despite knowing its benefits; or are deliberately choosing not to dress well. The well-dressed are one of, or some combination of, the opposites of those. Clearly, then, you can tell some things about people from how they dress, or at least narrow down the possibilities.
Someone choosing to communicate deliberately over that signaling channel, or deliberately trying not to is, itself, information, as is someone trying to but missing their intended message, or someone plainly not understanding that it's a method of communication, or communicating with a message tuned for the wrong audience. This is how you end up with things like computer-nerd "uniforms"—they must make it clear they're trying to be non-conformist, as that's the signal they want to send, distinct from "I'm very poor", "my background is, in fact, low-class, and so my attitudes continue to follow", or "I don't know how to dress well even if I wanted to".
Every time you correctly identify a geek from across a room, or out on a trail, or on the street, based solely on how they're dressed and how they carry themselves, that's fashion-as-signal working very well. Does that mean you can so-identify every geek? Of course not. Does that mean there's no information available in fashion? Of course not. Are the geeks who choose to make it very obvious they're a geek sending a signal you're intended to receive? Oh my god, yes. And the ways they choose to make it clear further refine that message.
> Meanwhile, anyone who cares can dress plenty well enough to start in a lower-level management position by hitting Goodwill or eBay and dropping low-hundreds of dollars
Would second Ebay if on a budget, lots of very cheap options compared to what things go for retail. Back when I was in school I bought around 10 designer silk ties for 20$ (retail new for 200$+ each) and a few suit jackets. Knowing your measurements can't be overstated, and only costs a tape measure. Alterations are also very affordable and can make a world of difference.
You may be surprised to realize that you’re the one being superficial here in equating style with money. Dressing well does not require money - what it signals is a form of sophistication or good taste in the case of high fashion, or tidyness and well-being for casual clothing. Millions of people dress nicely from Primark/C&A alone, and even fashion students get going on tight budgets sourcing second hand items.
Much like keeping your hair looking good, trimming your nose hair and so on, these signals will never be completely ignored unless social norms for personal care change significantly - and that’s not happening without a significant cultural / economic / health shift.
> what it signals is a form of sophistication or good taste in the case of high fashion, or tidyness and well-being for casual clothing.
Caring about sophistication or good taste in fashion is a luxury that it takes money to afford. Even just the time investment it requires to be fashionable, to source nice clothes and plan outfits and all of that shit, it's absolutely the domain of people who have money.
I don't think you've ever been poor. Poor enough that "second hand" doesn't mean thrift stores, it means "hand-me-downs".
You shouldn’t jump to conclusions - there are many people on hn from other countries where having access to a thrift store defines you as relatively wealthy.
Either way, if you look like a hobo on your livestream setup, then people are likely to judge you.
I wish the world was less judgemental, but you don’t get to tell others how to be, so you have to live with how they act, and sometimes that means playing dress up. Sometimes it is
a sign of respect for other people’s opinions - some people really care about how you dress and that is OK.
Edit: also if you are obviously needy, then are you sure you can’t find thrift stores that will give you stuff for free? The best stores are run by volunteers who just want to help people.
You presuming to tell other people how they should think, according to your worldview, is also “bullshit”.
Accepting how other people have other opinions, rightly or wrongly, is just part of being a participant in this world.
If you interact with others as you are doing here, then perhaps you need to learn some wisdom.
Note that I agree that judging others by how they dress is bullshit + I have always hated it myself. I would also hazard a guess that you judge others for how they dress e.g. I expect you don’t like power dressers, or extremely fashionably dressed people.
The existence of society is a form of control on you. That's almost the entire point of society; standardized expectations and norms meant to maintain order.
So's... like, everything in society, really. Capitalism itself comes readily to mind, as an extreme form of soft social control that's actually not all that soft at all, in aggregate.
In the case of clothing, marking willful non-conformists is, notably, a significant part of its true (as in: accurate and useful) signaling value. This is where some counter-cultural fashions come from, in fact—an effort to make it crystal clear that one is dressing contrary to fashion norms on purpose and not by accident. To signal a distinction between the non-conformist and the ignorant or destitute.
You invest your time into your appearance so other people won't need to waste their time trying to determine if you're trustworthy.
Appearance is a heuristic. Raging about it is counter-productive.
Suits are flattering to the male figure because they smooth out the difference between a man's waist and his thighs, and accentuate the shoulders. That's not a fashion statement, that's an explanation of why suits are timeless.
With that said, they're fairly difficult to get fitted right. So wearing a suit that actually fits you says one of two things - you either buy new suits all the time to ensure that your suits actually fit you (in which case, yes, a suit signals that you have money), or you have the self-discipline to maintain your figure so that you don't need to buy a new suit all the time as you gain weight.
The fact is, either quality is desirable. It's those qualities that make suit-wearing the signal that it is. People who don't have at least one of those qualities, can't pull off wearing a suit.
The takeaway is meant to be that videoconferencing has reached a point of cultural importance where it has become hard to take a public figure seriously if they have a poor setup, in much the same way that it would be hard to take a poorly-dressed person seriously. Much as people experiment with clothing as a means of signalling status and personality, one's videoconferencing setup becomes a new way of signalling these things. It's all fairly obvious, but it's still not something that I have spent much time thinking about, and a how-to guide would probably not prompt me to think about the social and cultural aspects nearly so much.