Guy explains to CEO of Signal (messaging) that it's going to add "AI" to the service. She says no. He insists, not knowing or caring who he's talking down to.
Guy explains to CEO of Signal (messaging) that it's going to add "AI" to the service. She says no. He insists, not knowing or caring who he's talking down to.
Attached: 1 image Seen on Bluesky: Guy explains to CEO of Signal (messaging) that it's going to add "AI" to the service. She says no. He insists, not knowing or caring who he's talking down to.
human-driven technology goes brrrrr
You're viewing a single thread.
His reply is moronic… but “No ❤️” isn’t a great reply either.
I found the response humorous. I'd imagine if she felt this was actually important to address (rather than some idiot spouting BS) there would be a post from the Signal account, rather than her personal profile, and it would look very different.
It’s not a personal account if she identifies herself as the CEO.
Edit: The people downvoting me maybe forgot what happened with Proton and their CEO.
It is a personal account, as that is her personal name, -and- she is the President. Both things can be true. Stephen King uses his personal profile in a casual format with quips and jokes, random posts about the weather, what he's doing today, retooting fan art, and correcting idiots; because that's what he wants to share, just like I do with my profile. Yes, he has to be mindful of what he posts because the internet never forgets; and so do I. My posts can have real world repercussions for my job, or business just like King or Whittaker. The only difference is viewership.
Regardless, if I accommodate your argument and focus on posts from "official" accounts, Wendy's has used their accounts to troll for at least a decade. They have established informal engagement as a legitimate customer engagement strategy and it has been adopted by marketing teams the world over. Whittaker's interaction has garnered hundreds of comments in this niche thread alone: hundreds of impressions of the Signal brand. You are arguably the only user who negatively responded to her. From a branding perspective, those are phenomenal Results.
"The burden of identification is not on the reply guy, but the women womst replied to..."
What does this even mean or have to do with what I said?
I'm making fun of your clichéd comment.
How?
by exaggerating the neckbeardiness of it
Brevity sticks
In this case brevity is not the soul of wit. It was a dumb reply to a comment that didn’t deserve one to begin with.