- cross-posted to:
- dontyouknowwhoiam@lemmy.world
- netzkultur@feddit.org
- cross-posted to:
- dontyouknowwhoiam@lemmy.world
- netzkultur@feddit.org
human-driven technology goes brrrrr
You must log in or # to comment.
This is almost as good as the jackass who tried to tell Margaret Atwood that “the woman who wrote that book was talking about Muslims, not Christians”
That sounds good. Got a link?
If the owner of signal commented in this thread I would have no idea lol
There is no owner, it’s a 501c3. Meredith is the CEO.
Double-secret
Same difference
It’s really not. It’s an important distinction.
For this discussion it isn’t really relevant which title they hold in the organization, I still wouldn’t recognize them lol.
A section 501©(3) organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator’s family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests. No part of the net earnings of a section 501©(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. A private shareholder or individual is a person having a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization.
From IRS.gov.
It really isn’t. The designation should be meaningful because it is. So what are you even talking about?!
I think my username applies to you, this distinction doesn’t really matter in the context of my original comment so everyone rushing to correct me is funny lnao
This happens to me a lot. I would be using some terms loosely and people would only jump to them, getting the wrong idea. People really need to chill out, let us have a causal conversation.
She posted with a “we” statement about her own company. If someone did that, you might think about who they are but this guy completely assumed she was a know nothing nobody.
https://bsky.app/profile/meredithmeredith.bsky.social/post/3lrqccvwnqs2z
Well now you would ;)
No lol
deleted by creator
Lemmy users will really do anything before they believe a woman, won’t they?
"The man is still correct because the Signal CEO may claim that TODAY that engineers are not currently working on adding AI, but that doesn’t mean in the future she won’t say it was worked on in the past!"
Lemmy users will really do anything before they believe a woman, won’t they?
What a weird take on this.
💅
Are you a feminist by chance? Just asking cuz I know a feminist who uses this particular emoji a lot haha.
yes
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
If I found out I was talking down to a Microsoft exec when I thought I was talking to a regular employee, I’d double down.
I would have told them to bring back Clippy 📎 as an AI companion, but inappropriately erotic. 👠
Removed by mod
I think key context is that the guy is representing himself as having special knowledge about what Signal is doing internally and what they’ll do next.
It’s not “you bump into some rando on the street. Don’t you know she’s CEO of Signal??”
It’s “you’re giving a Ted Talk about Signal. The woman in the front row offers a correction and you’re like, ‘shut up, dummy.’”
deleted by creator
In general perhaps, but he literally said
The engineers have already began laying out the ground work for such support.
This really makes it sound like he’s pretending to know what he’s talking about when he doesn’t.
He replied to her post about how signal won’t use AI and she said “we”. He 100% assumed a woman was a nobody so he paid no attention. This is all on him.
https://bsky.app/profile/meredithmeredith.bsky.social/post/3lrqccvwnqs2z
deleted by creator
Sometimes it’s obvious misogyny and sometimes it isn’t but this has the hallmarks.
deleted by creator
Because nobody on the internet ever talks down to a man.
Thank you for that!
I have been laughing for the past hour.
And people still whinge about mansplaining not being a thing
What’s that?
It’s a phenomenon where men assume they have superior knowledge to women, even if the woman their talking to is literally an expert in her field.
I wonder if he would have done the same thing talking to a man…
People are putting this on sexism or whatever, but I feel like this dude is just one of those confidently wrong people and would have said this to literally anyone disagreeing with him.
I am a man, and an expert in my field, and I get people trying to condescend semi-regularly because they think they can handwave the problems I get paid to solve. Just completely unfounded confidence.
People will associate what you’re saying with pretty much everything even if it doesn’t make sense
Like how can one say that’s mansplaining and not just a baseless thought? What guarantees that they only do this with women?
Why split hairs about what’s going on rather than focusing on the fact that he talked down to a subject matter expert?
True. I’m sure plenty of mansplaining comes from blistful ignorance and unawareness, rather than outright misogynisticly driven malice, which is not a valid excuse to be an asshole.
deleted by creator
I’m downvoting because of your edit complaining about down-votes.
we downvoted because we didnt like your comment
hope that helps
Are you editing in all the people who is downvoting you?
He is lmfao, what a dork.
You can see who downvotes you on lemmy?
Not through Lemmy, but there are tools.
That’s wild, thanks!
deleted by creator
What she doesn’t realize is that he’s secretly leading a coup from inside the company.
/joke
i remember them saying the app wont get certain featues, cause it just makes the whole thing less secure. even tho the dude only has the pattern recognition of a dead crow, i do have to add that no company should be trusted, BUT having an open source client is a good way to win me over. and as far as i can tell, the molly devs would purge the ai implementation crazy fuckin fast anyway.
Didn’t realize I clicked a link and wondered when the screenshot was going to end…
Also, even this suggestion betrays a lack of understanding about how signal works. A big part of the long term security signal offers is that they don’t store data, so LLM integration would be on-device.
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.
deleted by creator
