There are two ways we can interpret these examples [0]. The first way is to interpret them as two propositions understood in the general context. I believe this

There are two ways we can interpret these examples [0]. The first way is to interpret them as two propositions understood in the general context. I believe this is the interpretation that the author had intended. In this case, the objection is just crappy because it fallaciously attempts to refute "usually p" with "occasionally not-p". It is a failure to reason correctly. So what's the cause of the fallacious inference? Well, in this particular post, the author chooses to focus on the case where the objector fails to appreciate (either though inability or through malice) the general context in which the original statement is being made. If I were to offer a diagnosis for what the author is aiming at, it is a lack of prudence [1]. Prudence, of course, presupposes humility [2] which some of you have mentioned. [0] The second way is to understand that these examples in a specialized context that hasn't been articulated. Take the Python example. Let's say we've been given an excerpt from a conversation that had taken place at a company that specializes in embedded microcontrollers. A charitable reading would actually lend credence to the objection. [1] Prudence in the classical sense as cardinal virtue, not its modern corruption. [2] Humility also in the classical sense, not as some corruption of modesty or lowliness.