[Brian_K_White]

Human language is not math.

It needs to convey concepts that are infinitely variable rather than binary.

When a poet or novelist says something in an unusual way, they are being more accurate not less accurate. If there is ambiguity, it is because the concept or observation they mean to express has some ambiguous element.

Trying to avoid that is just downsampling analog color reality to a 200ppi 1bpp fax.

A related concept that even the most aspbergers STEM head should be able to understand, is how a scientist almost never asserts anything unequivocally. Almost every statement is qualified with whatever is appropriate to the context. Even the most fundamental constants of the universe like the speed of light are famously relative. Are those scientists being more or less ambiguous when they decline to say something simple and direct?

Everything they don't say is deliberate and carefully crafted to be as correct as possible, not some sloppy ommission.

[croemer]

The speed of light _is_ constant, how could it otherwise be a fundamental constant? I think you might have meant time/distance is relative?

[alanbernstein]

Perhaps they're thinking of how it's dependent on the transmission material?

[Brian_K_White]

What is the definition of speed?