6 ms·

I am fascinated by the nuanced opinions people have about word choice. What phrase would you use to ask someone to discuss a matter, but which you feel would be

by chao- 11mo ago

I am fascinated by the nuanced opinions people have about word choice. What phrase would you use to ask someone to discuss a matter, but which you feel would be more appropriate for this kind of situation?

OsrsNeedsf2P 11mo ago
There is nothing you can do, because you already traded away the community for your AI project and money. The same corpo goons who don't see anything past their slop projects are the one who use the "jump on a quick call" lingo
stonogo 11mo ago
Asking someone to "hop on a call" is phrasing you use with someone you are close with, not someone whose work you've just destroyed and is no longer interested in a relationship with you. The fact that the preceding apology was absolutely awful does not help. "I'm sorry for how you feel" is wrong, since nobody asked them to react to "feelings" but the clearly delineated problems with the automation that Mozilla rolled out. Asking to discuss something like this over synchronous voice comms is basically asking to go off the record and handle things privately. Sometimes that's appropriate, but if that's what the correspondant wanted they would have asked for it. These three things combine to tell anyone who is paying attention that this is damage control, not meaningful engagement, and it's offensive to act this way toward someone who has put this much time into your project.
davidclark 11mo ago
My guess would be the anger comes from implication that is a possible solution at all. This type of “hop on a call” request is not usually actually designed to “truly understand what you're struggling with.” (words from the post) Instead it is usually a PR tactic. The goal of the call requester is to get your acquiescence. Most people are less likely to be confrontational and stand up for themselves when presented with a human - voice, video, or in person. So, the context of a call makes it much more likely for marsf to backpedal from their strongly presented opinion without gaining anything. This is a common sleazy sales tactic. The stereotypical overly aggressive car salesman would much rather speak to you in person than via email even though the same information can be conveyed. It is also used in PR and HR situations to grind out dissenters, so it comes off in this context as corporate and impersonal.
- mkagenius 11mo ago
  Are we reading too much into one sentence? HN comments dese days
  - aydyn 11mo ago
    I mean, its right and also not the only sentence too.
  - ricudis 11mo ago
    No, we aren't. It was this exact part of the conversation that touched me negatively too. marsf expresses some very valid criticism that, instead of being publicly addressed, is being handled by "let's discuss it privately". This always means that they don't want to discuss, they just want to shut you down.
  - tyre 11mo ago
    I don’t think so. Working in tech with many busy people, I say “hop on a call”, but only in “let’s sync live, it’ll be faster” situations. This stuck out to me as rude. I would never say that to someone on my team who expressed serious concerns, far less than this person quitting after years of dedication. I would offer an apology, explanation, and follow up questions to understand more in public, then say I’m happy to set up time to talk privately if they would like to or feel more comfortable.
    - thyristan 11mo ago
      > This stuck out to me as rude. Very much so, and I'm German ;) In my experience, and in my feeling as someone reading such things, you need to tone-match. The resignation message was somewhat formal, structured and serious in tone. Replying in such an informal tone means that you are not taking things seriously, which is insulting. Even more so because that informal answer is public. I'm tone-deaf by culture and by personality. I often make those kinds of mistakes. But a public resignation like this is a brightly flashing warning light saying: "this needs a serious formal answer".
  - davidclark 11mo ago
jffry 11mo ago
"I'm sorry for how you feel about it" isn't exactly an empathetic opening stance
- StarGrit 11mo ago
  It is a passive aggressive dismissal.
- aleph_minus_one 11mo ago
  In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45831614 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45831614 jack1243star pointed out the possibility that English might not be Kiki's first language and they perhaps even have used ChatGPT to make the comment sound more polite.
jacquesm 11mo ago
'We're sorry you feel this way' implies that this is the fault of the person that feels that way, not of the party that made them feel that way. Given the very clear message this was entirely uncalled for. This is not the kind of feeling that goes away by being talked down to like that, it might go away after a reversal of a very bad policy decision and a very sincere apology about a mistake that was made and even then the damage is severe enough that I would not be surprised if the person that was slighted decided to stick to their decision.
Daub 11mo ago
'I'm sorry for how you feel' is in the same class as 'I'm sorry if my words hurt you'. They are both classes of non-apologies. 'I'm sorry that our actions caused such distress' come a bit closer to being a true apology. Importantly, 'if' was changed to 'that'.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
BrenBarn 11mo ago
The right thing to do is undo what you did and then ask to talk about it. There is nothing the person can say to make up for the destructive effects they took.
dmitrygr 11mo ago
After you fuck up and before you ask to discuss the matter, you APOLOGIZE!
tehwebguy 11mo ago
It’s really not a word choice thing (though it’s definitely the favorite word choice of orgs who are committed to not doing anything about it). It’s that the complaint is descriptive on 5 or so actual problems and a couple of impacts that stem from them and the response doesn’t address any of them, it just looks like an attempt to take this issue out of the public space.
padolsey 11mo ago
I mean, almost anything would be better. But here's my swing: > I'm so sorry about this. We definitely screwed up here and want to > fix things. We want to chat to you in a call if you're able? > We will stop changing things, issue a moratorium on AI while we > figure things out. You and communities like yours are central to > our entire existence and purpose at Mozilla.
aleph_minus_one 11mo ago
> What phrase would you use to ask someone to discuss a matter, but which you feel would be more appropriate for this kind of situation? The only thing to ask for here are some clarifications and expanded explanations so that the original text does not get misunderstood. If the Mozilla representative does see such potential points he can perfectly ask for them publicly.
cyberrock 11mo ago
I suspect GP has had negative experiences with that specific phrase, "hop on a [quick] call", hence their "irrational rage". I also hate seeing that phrase at work: 1. "Hop" and "quick" suggests very simple matters, so to text-based people like me it doesn't really make sense why we wouldn't be able to resolve this matter asynchronously over text. 1b. Alternatively, the matter isn't actually trivial, so we should've had a proper meeting with other stakeholders instead of the caller debating me solo in a "quick" call. 2. I'm in the middle of something important or just hit my stride, and the caller is completely derailing my train of thought instead of just scheduling a meeting. 2b. The worst outcome is when I agree to "hop on", but the caller has gone AFK within 5 minutes of sending their invitation, so I'm just quietly seething by myself in the call. 3. The caller and I can't understand each other's accents so I'm trying to accommodate for the both of us by communicating through text, and I find it difficult to bring this incompatibility up without getting fired. I also had a caller who always whispered at his laptop mic so I had to turn up the subwoofers to have a chance of understanding him. But we should point out that "quick" doesn't exist in Kiki's message. I think that goes back to point #1 about how the specific word "hop" can imply that the issue is trivial. Or maybe we're all going insane over unnecessary ad-hoc meetings. Unrelated: I hate to appear anti-remote work, but I've noticed that remote workers tend to send more of these ad-hoc invitations, even more than getting tapped on the shoulder in the office. Are you all doing well out there?
- fwip 11mo ago
  With regards to your last point - in-person, you have more opportunities to connect with people at times that they're clearly not in the middle of something. Whether that's at the coffee machine, or right after a meeting, or just by reading their body language to see if they're concentrating. When you're remote, you don't have that context, so everything you need from somebody has to be either scheduled (with the overhead and delay that entails), or potentially randomizing. When you need 5 minutes of somebody's time, it can be hard to do that in a respectful way. (Personally, I do try to do a "do you have some time today that we could talk about X," and try to handle stuff over text with coworkers who prefer text.)
- jahsome 11mo ago
  It appears we're kindred spirits. I identify with every one of your points. I'd add the following at an even higher priority than those you shared: 0. Folks whose first, and often only, reply to text comms is "quick call?" are often just unwilling/unable to organize their own thoughts and instead seek to offload the cognitive load by "talking through" the issue which just results in unproductive and circular discussions. > Unrelated: I hate to appear anti-remote work, but I've noticed that remote workers tend to send more of these ad-hoc invitations, even more than getting tapped on the shoulder in the office. Are you all doing well out there? I chortled at this! I have made the same observation and I have the same question.
jahsome 11mo ago
Jump on a quick call to discuss further? I want to fully make sure I understand your question.

by chao- 11mo ago

OsrsNeedsf2P 11mo ago

There is nothing you can do, because you already traded away the community for your AI project and money. The same corpo goons who don't see anything past their slop projects are the one who use the "jump on a quick call" lingo

stonogo 11mo ago

Asking someone to "hop on a call" is phrasing you use with someone you are close with, not someone whose work you've just destroyed and is no longer interested in a relationship with you. The fact that the preceding apology was absolutely awful does not help. "I'm sorry for how you feel" is wrong, since nobody asked them to react to "feelings" but the clearly delineated problems with the automation that Mozilla rolled out. Asking to discuss something like this over synchronous voice comms is basically asking to go off the record and handle things privately. Sometimes that's appropriate, but if that's what the correspondant wanted they would have asked for it. These three things combine to tell anyone who is paying attention that this is damage control, not meaningful engagement, and it's offensive to act this way toward someone who has put this much time into your project.

davidclark 11mo ago

My guess would be the anger comes from implication that is a possible solution at all. This type of “hop on a call” request is not usually actually designed to “truly understand what you're struggling with.” (words from the post) Instead it is usually a PR tactic. The goal of the call requester is to get your acquiescence. Most people are less likely to be confrontational and stand up for themselves when presented with a human - voice, video, or in person. So, the context of a call makes it much more likely for marsf to backpedal from their strongly presented opinion without gaining anything. This is a common sleazy sales tactic. The stereotypical overly aggressive car salesman would much rather speak to you in person than via email even though the same information can be conveyed. It is also used in PR and HR situations to grind out dissenters, so it comes off in this context as corporate and impersonal.

mkagenius 11mo ago
Are we reading too much into one sentence? HN comments dese days
- aydyn 11mo ago
  I mean, its right and also not the only sentence too.
- ricudis 11mo ago
  No, we aren't. It was this exact part of the conversation that touched me negatively too. marsf expresses some very valid criticism that, instead of being publicly addressed, is being handled by "let's discuss it privately". This always means that they don't want to discuss, they just want to shut you down.
- tyre 11mo ago
  I don’t think so. Working in tech with many busy people, I say “hop on a call”, but only in “let’s sync live, it’ll be faster” situations. This stuck out to me as rude. I would never say that to someone on my team who expressed serious concerns, far less than this person quitting after years of dedication. I would offer an apology, explanation, and follow up questions to understand more in public, then say I’m happy to set up time to talk privately if they would like to or feel more comfortable.
  - thyristan 11mo ago
    > This stuck out to me as rude. Very much so, and I'm German ;) In my experience, and in my feeling as someone reading such things, you need to tone-match. The resignation message was somewhat formal, structured and serious in tone. Replying in such an informal tone means that you are not taking things seriously, which is insulting. Even more so because that informal answer is public. I'm tone-deaf by culture and by personality. I often make those kinds of mistakes. But a public resignation like this is a brightly flashing warning light saying: "this needs a serious formal answer".
- davidclark 11mo ago

jffry 11mo ago

"I'm sorry for how you feel about it" isn't exactly an empathetic opening stance

StarGrit 11mo ago
It is a passive aggressive dismissal.
aleph_minus_one 11mo ago
In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45831614 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45831614 jack1243star pointed out the possibility that English might not be Kiki's first language and they perhaps even have used ChatGPT to make the comment sound more polite.

jacquesm 11mo ago

'We're sorry you feel this way' implies that this is the fault of the person that feels that way, not of the party that made them feel that way. Given the very clear message this was entirely uncalled for. This is not the kind of feeling that goes away by being talked down to like that, it might go away after a reversal of a very bad policy decision and a very sincere apology about a mistake that was made and even then the damage is severe enough that I would not be surprised if the person that was slighted decided to stick to their decision.

Daub 11mo ago

'I'm sorry for how you feel' is in the same class as 'I'm sorry if my words hurt you'. They are both classes of non-apologies. 'I'm sorry that our actions caused such distress' come a bit closer to being a true apology. Importantly, 'if' was changed to 'that'.

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

BrenBarn 11mo ago

The right thing to do is undo what you did and then ask to talk about it. There is nothing the person can say to make up for the destructive effects they took.

dmitrygr 11mo ago

After you fuck up and before you ask to discuss the matter, you APOLOGIZE!

tehwebguy 11mo ago

It’s really not a word choice thing (though it’s definitely the favorite word choice of orgs who are committed to not doing anything about it). It’s that the complaint is descriptive on 5 or so actual problems and a couple of impacts that stem from them and the response doesn’t address any of them, it just looks like an attempt to take this issue out of the public space.

padolsey 11mo ago

I mean, almost anything would be better. But here's my swing: > I'm so sorry about this. We definitely screwed up here and want to > fix things. We want to chat to you in a call if you're able? > We will stop changing things, issue a moratorium on AI while we > figure things out. You and communities like yours are central to > our entire existence and purpose at Mozilla.

aleph_minus_one 11mo ago

> What phrase would you use to ask someone to discuss a matter, but which you feel would be more appropriate for this kind of situation? The only thing to ask for here are some clarifications and expanded explanations so that the original text does not get misunderstood. If the Mozilla representative does see such potential points he can perfectly ask for them publicly.

cyberrock 11mo ago

I suspect GP has had negative experiences with that specific phrase, "hop on a [quick] call", hence their "irrational rage". I also hate seeing that phrase at work: 1. "Hop" and "quick" suggests very simple matters, so to text-based people like me it doesn't really make sense why we wouldn't be able to resolve this matter asynchronously over text. 1b. Alternatively, the matter isn't actually trivial, so we should've had a proper meeting with other stakeholders instead of the caller debating me solo in a "quick" call. 2. I'm in the middle of something important or just hit my stride, and the caller is completely derailing my train of thought instead of just scheduling a meeting. 2b. The worst outcome is when I agree to "hop on", but the caller has gone AFK within 5 minutes of sending their invitation, so I'm just quietly seething by myself in the call. 3. The caller and I can't understand each other's accents so I'm trying to accommodate for the both of us by communicating through text, and I find it difficult to bring this incompatibility up without getting fired. I also had a caller who always whispered at his laptop mic so I had to turn up the subwoofers to have a chance of understanding him. But we should point out that "quick" doesn't exist in Kiki's message. I think that goes back to point #1 about how the specific word "hop" can imply that the issue is trivial. Or maybe we're all going insane over unnecessary ad-hoc meetings. Unrelated: I hate to appear anti-remote work, but I've noticed that remote workers tend to send more of these ad-hoc invitations, even more than getting tapped on the shoulder in the office. Are you all doing well out there?

fwip 11mo ago
With regards to your last point - in-person, you have more opportunities to connect with people at times that they're clearly not in the middle of something. Whether that's at the coffee machine, or right after a meeting, or just by reading their body language to see if they're concentrating. When you're remote, you don't have that context, so everything you need from somebody has to be either scheduled (with the overhead and delay that entails), or potentially randomizing. When you need 5 minutes of somebody's time, it can be hard to do that in a respectful way. (Personally, I do try to do a "do you have some time today that we could talk about X," and try to handle stuff over text with coworkers who prefer text.)
jahsome 11mo ago
It appears we're kindred spirits. I identify with every one of your points. I'd add the following at an even higher priority than those you shared: 0. Folks whose first, and often only, reply to text comms is "quick call?" are often just unwilling/unable to organize their own thoughts and instead seek to offload the cognitive load by "talking through" the issue which just results in unproductive and circular discussions. > Unrelated: I hate to appear anti-remote work, but I've noticed that remote workers tend to send more of these ad-hoc invitations, even more than getting tapped on the shoulder in the office. Are you all doing well out there? I chortled at this! I have made the same observation and I have the same question.

jahsome 11mo ago

Jump on a quick call to discuss further? I want to fully make sure I understand your question.