I see you guys used 'let' in your answers. But doesn't it sound weird in this case? [let + person + verb] This construction means "to allow someone to do something." Whereas in this case the speaker asks the listener to get someone to do the cleaning, not to allow to do it. https://www.englishpage.com/minitutorials/let.html So the more appropriate construction would be [have/get + person + verb].

Yasir, aside from meaning "allow," LET and HAVE are used to form the third person imperative: (A) Boss, the workers are all here, but they can't work on the new office until the paint dries. (B) Ok, then find something else for them to do in the meantime - let/have them wash all my cars.

okay. The article seems half-assed. Cambridge Dictionary did a much better job https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/let-let-s

(А). Господин (товарищ) начальник, рабочие все в сборе, но они не могут ничего делать в новом офисе (кабинете), пока не высохнет краска. (В). Ну, хорошо. Тогда найдите им пока какую-нибудь другую работу - пусть помоют все мои машины.
Ули, "господин/товарищ начальник" - так можно обратиться, если между начальником и подчиненными дружеские отношения, немного в шутку. А обычно - по имени отчеству. Thanks for the snippet 👍

Yasir, what's wrong? There's an example in the Cambridge dictionary:
"Let them walk home on their own". This is our case.

Elena, actually he said Cambridge did a much better job of explaining it.

Thanks for the translation!

Yeah, I was inattentive. You're welcome, Uly)

*I wasn’t paying attention

*I wasn’t paying attention - It's a process... (??)
If I just want to say that it was once?

Yes, it means that at that moment you weren’t paying attention.