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 The replier then pointed out the exemption rule is outdated therefore the implied consequence is wrong and the original line of reasoning was misinformation, and thus would be the greater error.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
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.
Again, it really, really wasn't. You can do all the contorting you want. Even your "math" here disagrees with you and you don't even realize it!
The post stated "Apple devices", referring to currently produced Apple Devices. Not "Apple". Those are two separate things, you get that, right?
I don't know what level of "basic math literacy" is required to understand that a company and a smartphone are separate things, but you don't seem to have it. Anyways yeah. I don't really owe someone who is repeatedly confidently wrong any further of my time.
You seem determined to have the last word, so I will let you have it. Maybe lecture me about how you prove a Tim Cook is an iCloud with monads. Bye.
