Someone in a tech role wrote something like "because of the limitations of XYZ system we can't get a crisp measurement of the number of 404 errors customers experienced", failed to add a ballpark estimate because they thought everyone was on the same page about severity, and someone polishing the language saw and interpreted as "I mean, who can really say whether there were 404s?"
And the latter one would have been originally written as something more normal, then someone else read it and objected, "Most customers were outside of the blast impact!" (or somesuch) so then because the purpose of the post was informational to all customers, instead of scoping the apology to the customers who were impacted they came up with that language.
Committee communications are a painful mess, and the more important everyone thinks an issue is the more likely they are to mangle it.
Someone in a tech role wrote something like "because of the limitations of XYZ system we can't get a crisp measurement of the number of 404 errors customers experienced", failed to add a ballpark estimate because they thought everyone was on the same page about severity, and someone polishing the language saw and interpreted as "I mean, who can really say whether there were 404s?"
And the latter one would have been originally written as something more normal, then someone else read it and objected, "Most customers were outside of the blast impact!" (or somesuch) so then because the purpose of the post was informational to all customers, instead of scoping the apology to the customers who were impacted they came up with that language.
Committee communications are a painful mess, and the more important everyone thinks an issue is the more likely they are to mangle it.