What is the URL of the page with the issue?
https://go.dev/blog/declaration-syntax
What is your user agent?
Screenshot
What did you do?
I noticed a logical fallacy: "Pointers are the exception that proves the rule."
What did you expect to see?
"Pointers are the exception to the rule."
"exception that proves the rule" is a phrase from Cicero but Cicero actually meant was "exception proves that a rule exists in cases where the exception does not apply"
Here is the backstory where the phrase originated and how it is used incorrectly nowadays:
https://philpapers.org/archive/HOLTEP
Cicero's friend Balbus wanted to keep his Roman citizenship, but other senators said that Rome had laws with many countries like Carthage where giving Roman citizenship to anyone from that country was forbidden - thus giving citizenship to Balbus, from Gades, should also be forbidden! Cicero said there is no explicit law that Gadus' citizens can't get Roman citizenship - the fact that such a law with Carthage exists means that in all other cases Roman citizenship can be granted - the exception of Carthage proves that there is a rule in cases not excepted.
What did you see instead?
What is the URL of the page with the issue?
https://go.dev/blog/declaration-syntax
What is your user agent?
Screenshot
What did you do?
I noticed a logical fallacy: "Pointers are the exception that proves the rule."
What did you expect to see?
"Pointers are the exception to the rule."
"exception that proves the rule" is a phrase from Cicero but Cicero actually meant was "exception proves that a rule exists in cases where the exception does not apply"
Here is the backstory where the phrase originated and how it is used incorrectly nowadays:
https://philpapers.org/archive/HOLTEP
Cicero's friend Balbus wanted to keep his Roman citizenship, but other senators said that Rome had laws with many countries like Carthage where giving Roman citizenship to anyone from that country was forbidden - thus giving citizenship to Balbus, from Gades, should also be forbidden! Cicero said there is no explicit law that Gadus' citizens can't get Roman citizenship - the fact that such a law with Carthage exists means that in all other cases Roman citizenship can be granted - the exception of Carthage proves that there is a rule in cases not excepted.
What did you see instead?