While that use case is certainly an example of a convenience, I don’t think it passes the “mission critical” bar.
I can’t think of any way that emoji reactions would be mission critical unless they are part of an API that can be used for automated execution of tasks. But maybe that sort of thing does exist?
It is a perfectly adequate paper trail. It's much easier to check in a postmortem than shouting something across the desk. Like code review, because you know your approval will be recorded irrevocably, you just think it through that little bit extra before approving.
This is what I don't get; for someone wanting to use an irc client ":thumbs-up:" is as least as good as the actual graphic. Nothing is lost. And that goes for all the built-in emojis in slack.
Now if it was :4677: it'd be a different story - without some support it'd be hard to understand the constant identifiers.
I see too many of these. Write code to simulate something and obtain an inconclusive version of a result you can simply derive and prove definitively using statistics.
It seems like there was a mismatch in expectations that goes to the heart of how universities and philanthropy work.
The university thought it was getting a donation, along with some vanity conditions, comparable to naming a building or a chair, which it could fudge while spending the money on whatever it wanted.
The foundation thought it was paying the university to carry out something very specific on its behalf.
> The university thought it was getting a donation, along with some vanity conditions, comparable to naming a building or a chair, which it could fudge while spending the money on whatever it wanted.
I think it's clear that the conditions were more than vanity, and were actually qualitative.
Obviously, this could be done differently. But it's easy to do it like this and come to depend on it.