Hacker News Reader

Well you actually make a point for short reaction standardized support.

You won't be able to alter behavior of everyone around you. So at least the software should render these interactions in the least obnoxious way by being consistent on both side.

You will always be able to ask for textual clarification. But the big win is that you won't be bothered by sub-par quoting repost.

> You will always be able to ask for textual clarification. But the big win is that you won't be bothered by sub-par quoting repost.

Why would I need textual clarification? It was/is a mediocre joke. I don't need to comment on everything that crosses my path.

We are 3-6 people, and our pattern is specific reaction to questions like this. "do (specific task) so I can go forward" "can someone take over communication with X", depending on what we do we react differently I will do it/it is done/please clarify. This means that if you need two people in a meeting and get two "please clarify" and two "will be there" reactions, there will be less traffic in the chat. It is more concise.

You have a hint above you need to be specific what means what, when we onboard new people we go through these things. This is a problem with ontologies you have to be specific and not allow meanings to drift.

I am not a emoji expert but this has been a way to make our chats a lot more easy to get a grip on.

We do not use Apple so do not get "Loved X" types of messages.

> OK does not convey the same thing. Fine. Is "10-4" or "copy that" or "Roger" acceptable? Because the whole point of that text, in a work context (and this is always a work conversation; I like my partners but I'm not personal friends with them), is to convey "I have received your message".

So I had missed the “in a work context”, where I think your point is slightly more valid.

>And a reaction generates an SMS that is, until you realize what it is, kind of incomprehensible. "Loved '[my comment]'" makes no sense when you get it as a long comment.

Only if you don’t both have iPhones, and the necessary information is all at the beginning. You see “Loved” and a few words from the start of the message and you remember what you said and you know which message.

> The reactions may not help you I have trouble seeing how they help anyone. You made an obvious joke. A guy who laughs at anything reacts "HA-HA!!" or whatever. What is the contribution?

So this answer may surprise you, but emoji reacts actually do communicate something unique, and of value. They are more subtle. They also permit the conversation to terminate after the react. In my mind, and the mind of many others, an actual message necessitates a response, and I’d see it as rude to neither respond nor react to a message. Reactions are subtle and out of hand, and you don’t respond _to_ a reaction. Using a react instead of an actual text response has a way of signaling the other user that they don’t need to respond further, that you read their message, how you feel about it, and no further information is necessary. This is incredibly useful and I’d struggle to communicate with any kind of emotional nuance in this day and age without it. More fundamentally, reactions solve the problem of non-verbal communication and body language in text.

>This isn't "get off my lawn", much as I do love that.

It gives “get off my lawn” a bit when you say you don’t see how it would be useful to anyone. I’d never try to convince you that you need to use it, but I do think you should understand the utility for everyone else.

But, I definitely understand that it’s not useful for your professional use case as an anesthesiologist. Also, wow, what a cool job (seriously)!

> Fine. Is "10-4" or "copy that" or "Roger" acceptable?

Or, since we're on a technical forum: "Ack" / ACK.

> I have trouble seeing how they help anyone.

That sounds like a problem unique to yourself and I imagine this is not the only such case in which you struggle.

Imagine away.

At least I can. The seemingly impossible task for you.