You are arguing from extremes on both sides. A blog post is not a math PhD defense. Nor is it a formal systems proof. The words do not have one and only one

You are arguing from extremes on both sides. A blog post is not a math PhD defense. Nor is it a formal systems proof. The words do not have one and only one possible interpretation. It is extremely common writing style to dedicate an article to "X does Y" when trying to talk about an interesting tendency or correlation. Unfortunately, it is also extremely common for people who work in formal systems to get an allergic reaction and feel compelled to point out that "X does Y" is not formally, literally, universally correct under all conceivable circumstances. This leads to distracting arguments that waste huge amounts of time that could have been spent discussing the interesting tendency/correlation and what to do about it. The proposed alternative is usually that the author should have peppered the article with caveats, exceptions, disclaimers and preferably citations of formally verified statistics. Again, this is not the Journal of Science. This is an opinion piece. Watering down every statement with disclaimers would be a distraction from the central point and would only serve to satisfy the allergies of a few highly formal readers.