i.e. intentionally use definitions you know are confusing and then - as language is famously a single person endeavour - blaming the listener when they misunderstand. This arrangement works particularly well as a shibboleth to prevent people knowing what you're saying if they have the poor foresight to choose another language as their native tongue.
Games are very un-'clean'. They can stop working just a few years after release and they don't support any kind of developments in the platform (framerate limits, resolution limits, OS support). Understandable, there's no financial reason to support a game that won't sell anymore, except they're also hostile to passionate users who would do it themselves if things were opened up a bit.
I think it's worth noting that S&P 500 index funds didn't exist until the 70s. You'd be spending a lot of time and money to approximate it before that.
You only chose to live that far from work, in a place that gets a foot of snow, because you assumed you could make the journey in a petroleum car. It wouldn't have been possible 100 years in the past and it won't be possible 100 years in the future. Same for your employer choosing not to provide showers.
Well firstly, you as a reader did actually know the context. That's why you could tell everyone else.
Secondly, giving that context requires the writer to know that it's not normal. If it's not normal. Yet you've failed to give that context. Your comment could just as easily be linked to in a forum mainly used by Hong Kongers or Singaporeans. Obviously, you have no reason to accommodate them because you shouldn't expect them to be your audience.
A reporter in China tweets to people who choose to follow a reporter in China and you accuse her of being disingenuous for failing to accommodate it being posted on an international website, out of context.
Unfortunately, pragmatism like yours sounds unconvincing compared to the more passionate positions of somebody against nuclear fission power. It doesn't mix well with an expensive project with a long development time that risks being cancelled in a temporary shift of public opinion.