Doesn't the author basically admit that when he prompts someone else to write "falsehoods programmers believe about TCP"? After all, if the author did have the understanding himself he could do it himself.
The reset of the writing just laments the pain of using products that make incorrect assumptions – continuing in same lamenting from the quoted segment he includes. It almost has nothing to do with TCP at all, so it is not clear where the parent comment here got the idea that it was trying to teach something about it.
The reset of the writing just laments the pain of using products that make incorrect assumptions – continuing in same lamenting from the quoted segment he includes. It almost has nothing to do with TCP at all, so it is not clear where the parent comment here got the idea that it was trying to teach something about it.