I don’t mean this to be rude, but that’s how complete sentences work. Sometimes they’re internally inconsistent, but when you reach the full stop you’ve hopefully arrived at a coherent view of what the speaker intended to express. I know with this one that I did, even when I noted the same inconsistency. It seems you did too, but got hung up mid-sentence anyway. Maybe just be glad you understand what they meant to say?
The point is, calling it zero-tolerance when it's not is misleading. There's a perfectly fine way to describe zero-tolerance with exceptions, and it's not even far fetched: “low tolerance”.
Complete sentences may make it possible to pretend bad wording is consistent, but that doesn't make it good wording.
My point wasn’t that it’s good wording, just that it may be good enough to understand what someone meant to convey. I can be very literal myself, and I can take others’ words overly literally as well. It hasn’t made life better for me to insist on that kind of consistency from others, especially when they know I know what they meant to say. It has helped me to develop some instinct for accepting the intent of people’s communication rather than the minutiae of it. Even when I find the inconsistencies. It’s much nicer to realize what someone meant, and sometimes even to have a small laugh to myself about the way they put it.
Misleading? I wasn't mislead. It seems like you weren't mislead. The person who responded to you wasn't mislead. Was anyone mislead? Really, a single person? Or is language a mechanism to probabilistically encode information and not a formal system, even if it often approximates one? Go learn Lojban and leave everyone who actually wants to communicate be.
Yeah with the benefit of 5 minutes hindsight it's hilarious that I got suckered in literally just because I felt a single word wasn't precisely accurate. I mean, "misleading" didn't mislead me in the slightest, the overall meaning was clearly that it's better to be correct than not, precisely the impetuous of my snark. He who is without sin, yada yada yada
I guess I should clarify that in the rare case I still want to access the content, I still do not engage with the modal dialogs, but instead use a proxy service such as archive.is to present it in an accessible way.
I consider modals to be a gross accessibility issue.
I went through a phase when I was reading way too much about communism and riding shotgun back and forth to Buffalo a lot while stoned and resolved I was going to quit reading the web with a normal web browser but instead I was going to run everything through a workflow system that would convert web sites to HAR files, strip out all the ads and bullshit.
I worked on it pretty seriously for two weeks but got hung up on the problem that my web archiving system was never 100% sure that a page had finished loading (that there would be more significant AJAX calls) so it would set long timeouts and even with a lot of stripping out the junk it was going to be even more awkward than dealing with the junk.
Looking back at it however it looked like an overly ambitious project.
By zero tolerance, I mean to say that I do not engage with the dialogs in any way, e.g. clicking agree, cancel, close, or the area around the dialog if it is blocking the page.
By few exceptions, I mean that I look for an alternative method to access the content rather than disengaging from it entirely.
I am imperfect, so if you were to observe me 24/7, you would probably see me slip up eventually. But this is an ideal I strive for and for the most part am satisfied with the results of pursuing.
FWIW I'm very sorry I put you through this. My comment was low value, posted during insomnia, I was very surprised by the reach it gained while I slept at last.