3 ms·

But he fairly in depth described the problem and his reasoning for why it is a problem. There's nothing really to "jump on a quick call" about without actually

But he fairly in depth described the problem and his reasoning for why it is a problem. There's nothing really to "jump on a quick call" about without actually first addressing the issues. Plus it just sounds, for lack of a better term, retarded. First off, in comparison to basically any other communication, calls aren't quick. Much less the one that you have to schedule around time zones. Calls require focused attention which if you are used to multi-tasking are a huge drain. Secondly I don't really feel like going too deep, but the use of the verb jump is like a bludgeon to the frontal lobe of anyone that's had to spend time listening to buzzword heavy C-suite speeches when they could have been doing their actual work. Very bill lumbergh energy.

jacquesm 1y ago
Quite. "We may have made a mistake, would you be open to discuss this with us either through email or a call at your preference?" would work a lot better in this setting.
crazygringo 1y ago
> But he fairly in depth described the problem and his reasoning for why it is a problem. There's nothing really to "jump on a quick call" about without actually first addressing the issues. No, he didn't. I'll repeat a comment I made elsewhere: The problems are nowhere near actionable. A lot more information is needed. E.g. literally the first bullet: "It doesn't follow our translation guidelines". OK -- where are those guidelines? Is there a way to get it to follow them, like another commenter says works? Does the person need help following the process for that? Or is there a bug? Etc. These are the things a call can clarify. It's the necessary first step, so why are people complaining? > Calls require focused attention which if you are used to multi-tasking are a huge drain. Solving important problems requires focused attention. Which is why you get on calls to solve them when they're urgent and important, and not something that can be multitasked.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- ludwik 1y ago
  I think you misunderstood what people are taking issue with. You explain that this matter is complicated and non-trivial - and yes, that’s exactly the point! People don’t have a problem with real-time communication via audio or video in general. They have a problem with the suggestion that it’s a trivial issue that can be easily fixed by "jumping on a quick call." The point about there being a "fairly in-depth" description of the issues isn’t that there’s nothing more to discuss - fixing those issues would obviously require talking through the specifics. The point is that this is a real problem that requires action and commitment, so suggesting it’s a non-issue that can be clarified with “a quick call” comes off as dismissive and unproductive, whether that’s intentional or not.
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    > it’s a trivial issue that can be easily fixed by "jumping on a quick call." Where are you getting this from? Nowhere is it suggested that a quick call will resolve it. You're inventing that. The actual text is: > Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further? We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with. This is the first step towards fixing something. Understanding it. The idea that this is dismissive or unproductive is frankly absurd.
    - AlexandrB 1y ago
      It is dismissive. "Your AI just deleted 20 years of my hard work" "Let's hop on a quick call so we can truly understand what you're struggling with". The response doesn't acknowledge the severity of the problem at all and the wording of "what you're struggling with" suggests that the original poster is somehow at fault (or too dumb) for "struggling" with Mozilla's terrible decisions. This is the kind of reply you'd get if you contacted Dell tech support because your computer is not turning on.
      - crazygringo 1y ago
        > "Your AI just deleted 20 years of my hard work" I assume it didn't. I can't imagine it's not versioned. > The response doesn't acknowledge the severity of the problem at all Offering to escalate to a phone call immediately seems to acknowledge the severity to me. Not really sure what you want here. The person came in with complaints, the response is to dig into them over the phone. That's ideal. > the wording of "what you're struggling with" suggests that the original poster is somehow at fault (or too dumb) for "struggling" with Mozilla's terrible decisions. This is a bizarre interpretation. I read it as validating that the person is having a rough time. There is zero indication of whose fault it is, or that it has anything to do with intelligence. That's coming from you, not the text. The fact that you are reading empathetic wording as an insult to someone's intelligence baffles me.

jacquesm 1y ago

Quite. "We may have made a mistake, would you be open to discuss this with us either through email or a call at your preference?" would work a lot better in this setting.

crazygringo 1y ago

> But he fairly in depth described the problem and his reasoning for why it is a problem. There's nothing really to "jump on a quick call" about without actually first addressing the issues. No, he didn't. I'll repeat a comment I made elsewhere: The problems are nowhere near actionable. A lot more information is needed. E.g. literally the first bullet: "It doesn't follow our translation guidelines". OK -- where are those guidelines? Is there a way to get it to follow them, like another commenter says works? Does the person need help following the process for that? Or is there a bug? Etc. These are the things a call can clarify. It's the necessary first step, so why are people complaining? > Calls require focused attention which if you are used to multi-tasking are a huge drain. Solving important problems requires focused attention. Which is why you get on calls to solve them when they're urgent and important, and not something that can be multitasked.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ludwik 1y ago
I think you misunderstood what people are taking issue with. You explain that this matter is complicated and non-trivial - and yes, that’s exactly the point! People don’t have a problem with real-time communication via audio or video in general. They have a problem with the suggestion that it’s a trivial issue that can be easily fixed by "jumping on a quick call." The point about there being a "fairly in-depth" description of the issues isn’t that there’s nothing more to discuss - fixing those issues would obviously require talking through the specifics. The point is that this is a real problem that requires action and commitment, so suggesting it’s a non-issue that can be clarified with “a quick call” comes off as dismissive and unproductive, whether that’s intentional or not.
- crazygringo 1y ago
  > it’s a trivial issue that can be easily fixed by "jumping on a quick call." Where are you getting this from? Nowhere is it suggested that a quick call will resolve it. You're inventing that. The actual text is: > Would you be interested to hop on a call with us to talk about this further? We want to make sure we trully understand what you're struggling with. This is the first step towards fixing something. Understanding it. The idea that this is dismissive or unproductive is frankly absurd.
  - AlexandrB 1y ago
    It is dismissive. "Your AI just deleted 20 years of my hard work" "Let's hop on a quick call so we can truly understand what you're struggling with". The response doesn't acknowledge the severity of the problem at all and the wording of "what you're struggling with" suggests that the original poster is somehow at fault (or too dumb) for "struggling" with Mozilla's terrible decisions. This is the kind of reply you'd get if you contacted Dell tech support because your computer is not turning on.
    - crazygringo 1y ago
      > "Your AI just deleted 20 years of my hard work" I assume it didn't. I can't imagine it's not versioned. > The response doesn't acknowledge the severity of the problem at all Offering to escalate to a phone call immediately seems to acknowledge the severity to me. Not really sure what you want here. The person came in with complaints, the response is to dig into them over the phone. That's ideal. > the wording of "what you're struggling with" suggests that the original poster is somehow at fault (or too dumb) for "struggling" with Mozilla's terrible decisions. This is a bizarre interpretation. I read it as validating that the person is having a rough time. There is zero indication of whose fault it is, or that it has anything to do with intelligence. That's coming from you, not the text. The fact that you are reading empathetic wording as an insult to someone's intelligence baffles me.