/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.10760008]

>We partnered with @AccordHQ who is building smart legal contracts a few weeks back. Excited to re-share the official announcement here.
Is this proper English grammar? First the website typos, now this.

[Anonymous No.10760025]

TIGER MOMMEY PLS

[Anonymous No.10760027]

thats it i sold

[Anonymous No.10760028]

>>10760008
That's what happens when you get a gook bitch who can't speak Engrish to "market" your product. Fucking idiots.

[Anonymous No.10760038]

>>10760008
riddle anon references

[Anonymous No.10760044]

Missing two commas I suppose, but don’t know if they’re technically absolutely necessary.

[Anonymous No.10760053]

Gwailo
You buy Chang-Rink
You buy now Laowai
You go

[Anonymous No.10760061]

>>10760044
"who is building smart contracts a few weeks back" makes sense?
you fucking beaner

[Sage No.10760063]

>>10760044
Should also be "who are" instead of "who is"

t. non-native who knows his shit

[Anonymous No.10760088]

>>10760063
it should be "who were" dipshit. the whole sentence is cringe though. she's essentially saying "they were building smart contracts a few weeks back". what kind of message is that?

[Anonymous No.10760100]

>a Harvard diploma & 2 months of radio silence and 'hard work behind the scenes' for THIS

[Anonymous No.10760112]

There is no issue with using “is” to refer to the actions of a singular entity, Accord.

[Sage No.10760116]

>>10760088
>We partnered with @AccordHQ [who is building smart legal contracts] a few weeks back. Excited to re-share the official announcement here.

Now do you understand? Brackets denote an "inserted sentence"

[Anonymous No.10760121]

>>10760088
What she is trying to say is: We partnered with @AccordHQ, a company building smart legal contracts, a few weeks ago

[Anonymous No.10760131]

>>10760116
it still isnt proper english, ranjeet. it makes no difference with your dumb brackets. It should be "are" or "were".

[Anonymous No.10760132]

>>10760112
literally this, here's an example sentence

"/biz/ is retarded"

[Anonymous No.10760156]

>>10760008

It's true, I saw them building some smart contracts a few weeks ago at McDonald's.

[Anonymous No.10760160]

>>10760121
It's horribly composed nonetheless

[Anonymous No.10760162]

>>10760008
Adelyn's got to go

[Sage No.10760166]

>>10760131
>amerilard education everybody

How do you feel knowing a yuropoor is taking the piss out of you in english syntax?

[Anonymous No.10760183]

>>10760131
Yikes.

[Anonymous No.10760196]

>>10760088
confirmed chainlink's target audience is ESL investors.

[Anonymous No.10760197]

>>10760008
>We partnered with Accord a few weeks back.
>Accord/who is building smart legal contracts.

Nothing wrong with the grammar.

[Anonymous No.10760203]

>>10760131
Wrong. Microsoft IS working with Ethereum, Ethereum IS implementing PoS, Accord IS developing smart contracts.

[Anonymous No.10760208]

>>10760008
oh my fucking god how could someone actually type that out and not see how contorted and illiterate it sounds? WTFFFF

[Anonymous No.10760218]

>>10760208
See >>10760208

Learn better English.

[Anonymous No.10760220]

>>10760197
Phrase structure is clumsy

[Anonymous No.10760226]

>>10760218
Learn to quote

[Anonymous No.10760239]

>>10760208
See >>10760197

Learn better English.

>>10760220
Not really.

[Anonymous No.10760240]

>>10760008
>WE's be buildin the mutha fukin singularity nigga.

[Anonymous No.10760268]

>>10760239
It's building it a few weeks back? With a time machine?

[Anonymous No.10760269]

>>10760239
I'm willing to consider that sentence acceptable if she chose that tone to make it feel more casual ahead of some of the more important partnerships

[Anonymous No.10760276]

>>10760008
>ChainLink official Twitter
>An entire industry looking for blockchain use cases is cringing at these posts
>Calculate the price of smart contracts

Linkies fucking pls

[Anonymous No.10760288]

>>10760268
Do you routinely forget the first part of the sentence by the time you get to the end?

[Anonymous No.10760310]

>>10760288
Do you routinely write sentences in which people have to go back to the first part to understand the end part?

Like someone said before, phrase structure is clumsy and sounds awkward.

How about we put that "a few weeks back" next to the verb so that the connection is clearer. "A few weeks back we partnered with AccordHD, who is building smart contracts"

[Anonymous No.10760319]

A few weeks back, we partnered with @AccordHQ, a project that is building smart legal contracts. Excited to re-share the official announcement here.

Hire me Sergey

[Anonymous No.10760320]

>>10760310
I read it on the fly, got it right away.

Get over yourself.

[Anonymous No.10760330]

>>10760310
You don't want to strat the sentence with something trivial. They partnered with someone and that's the important part here. If that sentence were to be re-constructed it should say: We partnered with @AccordHQ, a company building smart legal contracts, a few weeks back

[Anonymous No.10760358]

someone tell slack. this is embarassing

[Anonymous No.10760367]

>>10760320
Good for you, but structuring things better helps with marketing. Smart people will think your phrasing is weird, dumb people will have to read twice.

[Anonymous No.10760380]

>>10760330
Your version is fine too, I don't think writing "a few weeks back" first is too detrimental but I get your point.

[Anonymous No.10760383]

>>10760008
Have a white person take 2 mins to proof read this Engrish before it gets posted. Wtf is this shit jesus christ.

[Anonymous No.10760396]

it's definitely a clumsy sentence and any marketing department with a real copy writer or editor would not publish that, but it's grammatically correct. At least there's no typos, and given the state of the website, that's all we can really expect.

[Anonymous No.10760428]

asian girls with sloppy english is sexy