3 ms·

Back in the day, it was useful, as in, "Expect awkward phrasing and unintended effects of autocorrection, because mobile device. This message doesn't necessaril

Back in the day, it was useful, as in, "Expect awkward phrasing and unintended effects of autocorrection, because mobile device. This message doesn't necessarily reflect the intent of the sender." (Considerate users would/could edit the signature to something w/o a product name in it.) Nowadays, this is pretty much the norm and no explicit warning ist required anymore.

Hizonner 7mo ago
So an automatic "I am a lazy piece of shit and think my time and convenience are worth more than yours" warning? I guess that's useful.
- bbkane 7mo ago
  I always felt like it was "I prioritized a speedy response on my phone instead of an elegant response from my computer at a later time".
- masswerk 7mo ago
  As in, "I put it on you to better check and follow-up before acting on this…" ;-)
hnlmorg 7mo ago
That just means the person sending the message didn’t bother to proof read their message before sending. And you don’t need to be on an iPhone to mistype a message. A simpler explanation was that it was a shameful advert injected into the end of people’s emails.
- masswerk 7mo ago
  I guess, it was probably intended as the second one (it was also the default email signature, so advertising that feature, as well), but its usefulness was definitely in the implied warning. Mind that a written message used to be the gold standard for expressed intent, which changed quite radically with smartphones. (Historically, this development is probably an important prerequisite for the acceptability of LLM generated text, I guess.)