30th
… Seriously, this article is the single worst piece of journalism I have ever seen in the New York Times. The writing is fucking terrible. The advice is useless. The points are obscured by cliche.
“You can do something as simple as calling people instead of e-mailing them. If you work on the same floor, you can even walk over to their desks and talk to them!”
This is the worst sentence in the paper’s history. “You can do something” implies a singular object, which “calling people” is not.
“E-mail can become extinct, if not repurposed altogether, even at big companies like I.B.M. An e-mail in-box no longer needs to be like Pandora’s box.”
Who hyphenates “in-box?” Who hyphenates “e-mail?” Who has a fucking non-email inbox? I think we live in an age when the physical inbox for memos and correspondences requires a distinction, not the other way around. Is “becoming extinct” a lesser degree of being “repurposed?” Is an inbox often considered a jar containing the evils of mankind, as implied by the metaphor?
After a little Googling, I discovered the author is from Spain. This doesn’t forgive his poor choice of metaphor, nor does it exempt the Times from copy-editing.