Being on the sharp edge of professional "do you want what you're asking for, or what I assume you want?" misunderstandings, you learn that it breaks in both directions often enough that sometimes not being pedantic up front isn't an option.

I don't think shittalking "well actually" conversations in the context of an equipment vendor making a cutely-titled article that is very sympathetic to the inexact language around designators for products they offer is the play.

This is why I've learned to present people with the concrete consequences and results of their service request. Especially if I get the feeling that someone does not comprehend what they are asking for.

"Your service request will result in X hours of downtime, as well as ireversible data loss between T1 and T2, and a reset of your system back to the state it was in at T1. All changes and interactions after T1 will be lost. Is this what you expect and want?"

Beyond a certain amount of service disruption or monetary investment, asking twice and making sure is prudent, not pedantic.

Normally I agree. The only time I ever raised my voice at a subordinate was because they were consistently lax and inaccurate with technical details. Things like mixing up C and C++ in conversations where it mattered.

But things like DB9 and RJ45 are so commonly used that anyone taking them literally is either being obstinate or are completely new to the field.

In this case, is it that helpful? Since only a lunatic would want a true DB9 and no one’s ever made a giant connector with 9 pins, I fail to see the importance.

Gotta love that sharp edge.

Nothing saves money like a good well actually.