Technology

58101 readers

3910 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

197

Microsoft says Delta’s ancient IT explains long outage after CrowdStrike snafu (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago

The fact that they are also available as mobile applications should further make it clear that no, these applications are not running on Windows 3.1 or Windows 95.

That kind of language will get you kicked in the balls by engineers. Sure. It should make it "clear" that they're not running on *this OS or that OS.

And what should also be made clear is that statement is an assumption. A probable one, IMO, a reasonable one, but an assumption nonetheless and therefore no one can call it a fact unless they just want to pretend to be right.

I ojbect to using language like "it looks like a thing so it's OBVIOUSLY a thing, you morons" being presented as irrefutable evidence of some sort.

The fact that it's an assumption should further make it clear that no, this is not a fact, and stating it as a fact is bullshit or deliberate misrepresentation.