Sure. You’re right. But there’s ways to look at it that makes it misleading anyway. For example if you read the title “Putin’s daughter was killed” what will you take from that? That he has multiple daughters or just one?
Plus, your example works because we live in a world where many people have multiple kids. But if you lived in a world where everyone you knew only had one kid, what would you infer from that? Because as far as I know, most people have zero wealth managers and some have one. It’s the first time I’m hearing of someone having multiple.
I’m not gonna pretend that your explanation doesn’t make sense. And the title is technically correct. But only technically. The fact that op has 34 upvotes shows that many people understood the same thing from the title and that makes it misleading, imo.
I wouldn’t assume anything about the number of his children from that, tbh. And that’s fair, multiple children are relatively common.
The time that something similar actually comes up for me is with doctors. I tend to assume that people are talking about their single gp when they say “my dr.,” and this is often wrong with people who have a lot of health issues (it’s not a problematic assumption, because I don’t do anything with it, I’m just picturing a GP for whatever their story is).
I suspect the disconnect is between traditional headline values (first shortness, then understandability) and the ones that would actually make sense in the modern age (font size is adjustable at the point of receipt, and nobody reads articles, so clarity should win over length).
I would take it that Putin has many wealth managers.
Mainly because if he only had one then he’s a fucking idiot. And Putin is many horrible things, but he’s no idiot.
I mean if you had enough cash that you needed wealth management would you trust one person to oversee all of it? I know I wouldn’t, money can make even the most trustworthy of people question things.
Sure. You’re right. But there’s ways to look at it that makes it misleading anyway. For example if you read the title “Putin’s daughter was killed” what will you take from that? That he has multiple daughters or just one?
Plus, your example works because we live in a world where many people have multiple kids. But if you lived in a world where everyone you knew only had one kid, what would you infer from that? Because as far as I know, most people have zero wealth managers and some have one. It’s the first time I’m hearing of someone having multiple.
I’m not gonna pretend that your explanation doesn’t make sense. And the title is technically correct. But only technically. The fact that op has 34 upvotes shows that many people understood the same thing from the title and that makes it misleading, imo.
I wouldn’t assume anything about the number of his children from that, tbh. And that’s fair, multiple children are relatively common.
The time that something similar actually comes up for me is with doctors. I tend to assume that people are talking about their single gp when they say “my dr.,” and this is often wrong with people who have a lot of health issues (it’s not a problematic assumption, because I don’t do anything with it, I’m just picturing a GP for whatever their story is).
I suspect the disconnect is between traditional headline values (first shortness, then understandability) and the ones that would actually make sense in the modern age (font size is adjustable at the point of receipt, and nobody reads articles, so clarity should win over length).
I would take it that Putin has many wealth managers.
Mainly because if he only had one then he’s a fucking idiot. And Putin is many horrible things, but he’s no idiot.
I mean if you had enough cash that you needed wealth management would you trust one person to oversee all of it? I know I wouldn’t, money can make even the most trustworthy of people question things.