3 ms·

> why do you feel “we’re on it” is directly addressing How could it be described as anything but? It isn't specific, but it is direct.

jncfhnb 3y ago
I suppose it is literally a direct statement. However if I ask someone what they’re going to do about X, and they say they’re working on it, I’m going to assume they have no idea what to do about X, and are in fact not working on it.
- digging 3y ago
  Maybe that stems from your experience but I don't think that's a fair expectation in general. Sharing detail about their approach could have all sorts of downsides. It might be they are still investigating multiple approaches and don't know which one they'll pick (this is usually what I mean when I say that). It might be the CEO doesn't want to disclose details about the work that would be better filtered through marketing. It could be they're trying to avoid leaking trade secrets.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    That’s fine. But it still amounts to having said nothing of value
    - digging 3y ago
      That makes no sense to me. It's a confirmation that they are working on it, rather than ignoring it. It's nothing but value.
- mindcrime 3y ago
  However if I ask someone what they’re going to do about X, and they say they’re working on it, I’m going to assume they have no idea what to do about X, and are in fact not working on it. Fair enough, but I would say that applies to an actual conversation. I don't consider a couple of back and forth Tweets to be a conversation. That's not what Twitter is for, or how it's usually used, IMO. Twitter is for short, pithy, quick little comments ... like "The team is on it". And not to beat a dead horse, but again, I assign some particular weight to this simply because this was the CEO of the company - not some low level flunky, or even a VP where they are one of 3,362 VP's they might have. Would a more detailed response be appreciated? Sure, 100%, absolutely. But to my way of thinking, this response is still significant.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    That’s fine. But the message is not that they’re doing something or not. It’s that no meaningful info was conveyed.

jncfhnb 3y ago

I suppose it is literally a direct statement. However if I ask someone what they’re going to do about X, and they say they’re working on it, I’m going to assume they have no idea what to do about X, and are in fact not working on it.

digging 3y ago
Maybe that stems from your experience but I don't think that's a fair expectation in general. Sharing detail about their approach could have all sorts of downsides. It might be they are still investigating multiple approaches and don't know which one they'll pick (this is usually what I mean when I say that). It might be the CEO doesn't want to disclose details about the work that would be better filtered through marketing. It could be they're trying to avoid leaking trade secrets.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  That’s fine. But it still amounts to having said nothing of value
  - digging 3y ago
    That makes no sense to me. It's a confirmation that they are working on it, rather than ignoring it. It's nothing but value.
mindcrime 3y ago
However if I ask someone what they’re going to do about X, and they say they’re working on it, I’m going to assume they have no idea what to do about X, and are in fact not working on it. Fair enough, but I would say that applies to an actual conversation. I don't consider a couple of back and forth Tweets to be a conversation. That's not what Twitter is for, or how it's usually used, IMO. Twitter is for short, pithy, quick little comments ... like "The team is on it". And not to beat a dead horse, but again, I assign some particular weight to this simply because this was the CEO of the company - not some low level flunky, or even a VP where they are one of 3,362 VP's they might have. Would a more detailed response be appreciated? Sure, 100%, absolutely. But to my way of thinking, this response is still significant.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  That’s fine. But the message is not that they’re doing something or not. It’s that no meaningful info was conveyed.