This has nothing to do with Gruber fans or not. Your take just isn't as smart as you thought it is. Highly regarded newspapers, tv programs or books have updates / retractions all the time as even with the best fact checking it's possible that something slips through.

▲

qarl2 an hour ago | parent [-]

They also have fact checkers, which would have caught this error instantly before people were deceived.

EDIT: It's not nice to change your comment after it's been replied to.

▲

dewey an hour ago | parent [-]

I've only changed "redactions" into "updates / retractions" as that was a typo.

Please take a look at https://www.nytimes.com/international/section/corrections for a small selection of what slips through fact checking on a well established and reputable newspaper.

▲

qarl2 an hour ago | parent [-]

I don't doubt that massive organizations make a lot of errors.

I don't think it makes your point, tho. The question is error per volume.

I seriously doubt Gruber does the same amount of fact checking as a serious publication. And that was my point above.

But I could be wrong - if you actually know I'd love the answer.

▲

dewey 28 minutes ago | parent [-]

If your question is if a single person running a private blog has the same fact checking resources as a big news corporation, the answer is no but I'm not sure why you'd need me to tell you that.

As mentioned in Gruber's retraction (https://daringfireball.net/2026/08/retraction_app_store_reje...) it's the first time he had to retract something in 24 years. It doesn't really make sense to compare the two in any case as the stakes and resources are very different.

	▲	qarl2 21 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No, my question is whether the per-story fact checking is equal, or much less. I suspect it's much less. Do you know otherwise?