4 ms·
Honestly if someone were to send me a message that only required a simple acknowledgement, and that person hypothetically had disabled reactions, I would interp
by bandyaboot 2y ago
Honestly if someone were to send me a message that only required a simple acknowledgement, and that person hypothetically had disabled reactions, I would interpret that as that person not wanting their message to be acknowledged. But I suspect what you’re really wanting is typed acknowledgment?
- ToucanLoucan 2y agoI would probably just send the emote I would react with as a single-letter answer. If I have nothing to say beyond "thumbs up emoji" the fact that you don't like reactions doesn't, by virtue of your opinion, give me anything more interesting to say in return.
- mavhc 2y agoI don't want my messages acknowledged, it's just The Generals Problem. I assume you've read it and understood it, if you don't understand or agree, let me know, otherwise don't waste my time, I don't need people to say Thanks, you're paying me to do it
- latexr 2y ago> I assume you've read it and understood it, if you don't understand or agree, let me know You’ve replaced “read” in the first part with “agree” in the second, and those are not at all the same thing. I can’t let you know that I haven’t read your message. If a parent says to the other “hey, I’m running late, I need you to pick up Tiny Tim from school”, an acknowledgement is paramount even if you read, understood, and agreed to the message. > it's just The Generals Problem. That problem is concerned with an unreliable communication channel, which does not apply to the situation.
- mavhc 2y agoIf the channel is reliable why would I need to know if you've read my message? and why would you tell me in another message? The problem isn't the acknowledgement, it's the additional steps I have to make to acknowledge the acknowledgement to the email system. Eg Whatsapp has 1 tick for sent, 2 for received, and turns them blue for opened.
- artinmg 2y agoAlthough it seems the military metaphor of Two Generals' Problem which I assume you're referencing is incidental, it's ironic that in the actual military all communication from superior to subordinate must be acknowledged perfunctorily, at least in very disciplined services like the United States Marine Corps. For example, if a sergeant says to a private "It's a nice day outside.", the private is obliged to respond, even if the statement is rhetorical. This leads to perfunctory responses, in this case it would be "Aye aye sergeant", or "Aye sergeant", or more casually "Er" or "Kill". You're not obliged to agree, just to acknowledge. Pretty similar to tapback responses in messenger apps and emails.
- psunavy03 2y agoIf this is a thing (never saw it in 20 years of active and reserve Navy service), it must be limited not just to the Marine Corps, but the ground side of the Corps, not the air side. Sure, there's norms around how you talk on the radio, standing watch on the bridge, on chat channels for command and control, etc. But the rest of the time, the rest of the military talks to each other more or less like normal people with the addition of acknowledging relative rank.
- artinmg 2y agoWell there you go, I was ground side Marine Corps for four years. No comment from a superior can pass unacknowledged. Indeed we view the air wing as a place where standards are lax and you live an easier life.
- mavhc 2y agoThe sergeant doesn't then have to open the acknowledgement and delete it/mark it as read, that's the difference.
- folmar 2y agoMost of the time I would be fine with the plain old read receipt + no other mail stating protest. The reactions have too different set between clients to convey enough meaning for me.