We partnered with @AccordHQ who is building smart legal contracts a few weeks back...

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

Attached: cuming on board.jpg (1324x836, 547K)

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

>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"

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

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

literally this, here's an example sentence

"Jow Forums is retarded"

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

It's horribly composed nonetheless

Adelyn's got to go

>amerilard education everybody

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

Yikes.

confirmed chainlink's target audience is ESL investors.

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

Nothing wrong with the grammar.

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

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

Phrase structure is clumsy

Learn to quote

See Learn better English.

Not really.

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

Attached: 1532862622733.jpg (800x377, 62K)

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

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

>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

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

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"

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

Attached: 1518294490929.jpg (634x425, 218K)

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

Get over yourself.

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

someone tell slack. this is embarassing

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.

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

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

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.

asian girls with sloppy english is sexy

Attached: 01.jpg (850x1275, 200K)