undefined | Better HN

Skip to content

Top Best Ask Show New Jobs

0 pointsparl_match2mo ago0 comments

> This is not correct. There is no exemption for Apple devices

It was not said that Apple was exempted. What was said is that Apple complied with the exemption rules.

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

calf2mo ago· 4 in thread

It was not said explicitly but it was a straightforward implication. The replier then pointed out the exemption rule is outdated therefore the implied consequence is wrong and the original line of reasoning was misinformation, and thus would be the greater error. Humans

parl_matchOP2mo ago

> It was not said explicitly but it was a straightforward implication

It really, really wasn't. All it said is that Apple became compliant with their current offerings.

Now you're contorting to dig your heels in, so I think this conversation is over. Have a good day.

calf2mo ago

It really, really was. It's the most basic type of logical implication.

It said: IF BatteryCycles THEN Exempt. BatteryCycles(Apple).

By first order logic modus ponens this results in:

Exempt(Apple)

This is basic math literacy by now. The fact that you do not seem aware and are being confidently rude about it is worth pointing out. Don't do that on HN. This is still a tech forum so try to respect rational discussion as we all abide by these shared rules in this space.

kstrauser2mo ago

The replier was wrong, though. They misread it and skipped over the part they thought wasn’t there.

calf2mo ago

They they're both wrong for separate reasons, hah.

Edit: the person who posted the links is still saying they're right, it seems they found the wrong link and fixed it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse