3 ms·
The 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-bi
by OnlyOneCannolo 6y ago
The 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.
- OnlyOneCannolo 6y agoIt only says that to people who know enough about computers to assume that when something is called 32-bit, it's probably not also 64-bit. Your example should have been "it's the bread" to match the wording of the article. Imagine I asked you to go to the store and get whatever as long as you come back with bread and meat. You get a plain baguette and a ham-on-baguette sandwich. When you return, you remove two identically wrapped items of similar size and weight from the grocery bag. I point to one of them and ask "what's that?". You, thinking that it's the plain baguette, answer "it's the bread". When I discover that it's a ham sandwich, I could be gracious and say that you made an error of omission. After all, it does have bread. And despite believing it to be just bread, you technically didn't say it wasn't also the meat. Or I could be ungracious and belabor how wrong I think you were.
- Dylan16807 6y agoAnd the correct analysis is that I was wrong! If you want to be gracious, I would suggest simply not pointing out the mistake. To say I made an error of omission is just not true.