5 ms·
Yea, that was my understanding. But its not an error of omission, the article specifically stresses its the API for 32 bits twice in the first two sentences of
by simplicio 6y ago
Yea, that was my understanding. But its not an error of omission, the article specifically stresses its the API for 32 bits twice in the first two sentences of the article.
- OnlyOneCannolo 6y agoThey're wrong because they didn't realize they left something out of a partially true statement. That's an error of omission.
- Dylan16807 6y ago"Win32 APIs long used for 32-bit Windows programming" is omission. "Win32 is the 32-bit API" is flat-out wrong.
- OnlyOneCannolo 6y agoWin32 refers to the 32-bit API and 64-bit API, so it's correct to call it a 32-bit API. The article never explicitly said that Win32 is exclusively 32-bit, so it omitted 64-bit.
- Dylan16807 6y ago> Win32 refers to the 32-bit API and 64-bit API, so it's correct to call it a 32-bit API. It's really not, as a standalone statement. It has a 32 bit part, it is not "32 bit end of sentence".
- OnlyOneCannolo 6y agoThat's what makes it an error of omission.
- Dylan16807 6y agoAn error of omission is when you say something that is misleading but still true. The incorrectly missing part has to be implied, not directly stated, to be an error of omission. The first instance in the article implies the incorrect part, but the second instance directly states the incorrect part.
- OnlyOneCannolo 6y agoWhen you intentionally say something misleading by omission but true, that's a lie of omission.
- Dylan16807 6y agoCan you explain the difference, in your mind? I thought you were treating them as synonyms. When I search for "error of omission" specifically, I only get two things. One is an accounting term, completely irrelevant. The other is a dictionary definition of "not including something such as an amount or fact that should be included" which is basically the same as a lie of omission and doesn't fit this situation. They didn't just leave out a fact, they made a statement that was factually wrong. Edit: You changed your post slightly, is the difference just the word 'intentionally'? Because I wasn't just talking about doing it intentionally.
- OnlyOneCannolo 6y agoThe omission part of their definitions is the same, but they're not synonyms. The lie is intentional. The error is unintentional. If Win32 is partially a 32-bit API, what is factually wrong about what they said? For that part to be factually wrong, they would have to say that it's exclusively 32-bit or not at all 32-bit. Both this situation and the accounting term fit the definition.
- Dylan16807 6y agoSaying that it "is" 32-bit is the same as saying it's exclusively 32-bit. It's like saying a ham sandwich "is" bread. Such a statement is flat-out false.