The author is a little loosey-goosey with some strong claims, eg that Jobs saying the iPhone ran OS X was a lie.
I noticed this too. This kind of hyperbolic assumption of bad faith for small inconsistencies seems to be fashionable at the moment. It often seems like it might be a manufactured assumption (although perhaps that’s me starting to fall into the same pattern…)
It really makes me sad (and worried for public discourse) every time I see something like it.
I used “loosey-goosey” for a reason. I really don’t think it was meant in bad faith. I think it was probably just lack of familiarity with the history, and sloppy hyperbole. My correction is intended more as gap filling than calling out the article’s claim.
People make mistakes! It’s okay, it’s probably better for public discourse to give them some grace unless it’s egregious or clearly intentional.
I don’t think it is! I think the language overshot what they meant to say, and I don’t think it was egregious. My whole point was to add historical context, partly because that was lacking but mostly because the mistake was totally understandable without it. I don’t think the article meant to cast aspersions on anyone, or if it did it meant it in a very lighthearted manner with not much commitment to those aspersions. Correcting that with also a light heart is okay too.
Then perhaps the part of your original post I responded to is not in fact about the thing I thought it was.
I’m definitely with you that we should not be quick to assume malice or bad faith in general.
The casual normalization of using heavy words like ‘lie’ - which assume malice on the part of others - is exactly the thing I’m worried by though. It’s almost worse if it was unintentional.
It encourages (popularizes?) a adversarial mode of thought that I don’t think should be the default.
People casually use terms like “lie” fairly freely, at least they used to do, to mean saying something said is untrue… without intentionally casting aspersions on the subject. If we can tell that someone is using this colloquial form, and doesn’t otherwise seem to be aggressively adversarial about that usage, shouldn’t we apply the best-intent-assumption to our own interpretations? Maybe it’ll even help to make the more intentionally adversarial usage more obvious.
"After a week’s work, we determined: that was a lie." (complete with dank text-overlay meme).
For Jobs it was a useful simplification (one of many) so the audience could understand the underpinnings. I don't think anyone rational thought the 4gb device on an entirely different architecture was actually running cat-branded OS X. You'd definitely not need a week to figure that out either.
Then to position this statement so early in the piece as some proof of their abilities or authority to speak on the matter does precisely opposite.
As much as hating on Jobs is fashionable, the bigger hyperbole is calling his statement a lie. iPhone OS and iOS both borrow heavily from OSX/macOS.
I noticed this too. This kind of hyperbolic assumption of bad faith for small inconsistencies seems to be fashionable at the moment. It often seems like it might be a manufactured assumption (although perhaps that’s me starting to fall into the same pattern…)
It really makes me sad (and worried for public discourse) every time I see something like it.