> [citation needed]

Come on man, do you genuinely think that anyone has ever wanted, on a phone, to have all their tabs running at full power in their pocket? I really don't think this "needs citation".

> It wasn't. It was possible to work the intended meaning out, but not without initial confusion, which is far from "pretty obvious".

It actually was pretty obvious, especially since I said it didn't "properly background tabs", implying that I think things should, you know, be backgrounded, almost as if I know that things run in the background. Saying "closed" was a linguistic shorthand and while I am not going to conduct a broad survey I think most people on this particular forum actually knew what I meant immediately.

It's not up to you to decide whether your communication happened to be obvious or not, and you are being told that you're wrong on this, which is enough of a proof that it wasn't.

> do you genuinely think

Yes, as guided by experiences with fighting various Android mechanisms to respect the will of the user and keep something running in the background, and using an OS that doesn't suspend background applications at all.

I think the person is being actively dishonest, as I think you might be too, because I think that anyone who frequents this forum knew what I meant.

Also who says I can’t determine if something is obvious? Hyperbolic example: If I say “my favorite color is green” and you say “well color doesn’t mean anything and is seriously just a spectrum of light and how it reflects off surfaces and really you should learn how light works before making such sweeping statements”, then I think it’s reasonable to say “I obviously meant that I liked how this particular spectrum of light looked on my optic nerve and deciphered by my brain when it reflected on things”, and I could say it’s obvious to everyone, even people who made the comment, because everyone knew what I meant.

I said something about tabs not being “backgrounded”, implying backgrounding, implying things running in the background. Any reasonable person would conclude that I meant about things running in the background.

And if I don’t get to decide if things are “obvious” then you don’t get to decide if you’re being reasonable.

> Yes, as guided by experiences with fighting various Android mechanisms to respect the will of the user and keep something running in the background, and using an OS that doesn't suspend background applications at all.

Even if I believed this, I do not think it should be the default behavior for something that will spend most of its life in someone’s pocket (by design).

Any reasonable person would have assumed that if you wanted to talk about backgrounding, you wouldn't have used a word with a very different meaning to refer to it. As I said, the fact that it was possible to infer the intended meaning does not mean it's obvious; the interring process being required proves the opposite.

> And if I don’t get to decide if things are “obvious” then you don’t get to decide if you’re being reasonable.

Of course. I might be not. But what I'm sure of is that I'm honest and I'm giving you a piece of information that may make you better at communicating in the future, entirely avoiding discussions like this one. Whether you use it to improve yourself or decide that I'm "unreasonable" is up to you and your ego.

> I do not think it should be the default behavior for something that will spend most of its life in someone’s pocket (by design)

If I don't want an app to run, I close it. If I do want it to run in the background, I don't close it but put it in the background instead. If I don't want to use the phone at all, I suspend the whole device. This is the design that has worked perfectly well on my phones for almost two decades now and was always the default there.

This is getting circular. I think you're actively lying if you say you didn't immediately parse what I said. I think you knew what I meant immediately, and I think you're being needlessly pedantic, which is fine but I think you should just be upfront about that.

I used a word arguably incorrectly ("closed") (though I would like to point out the iOS shortcuts uses that terminology as well), but the surrounding context about being backgrounded makes it very apparent.

Keep in mind, the person who initially responded started giving me a lecture about single-tasking operating systems, as if I don't know that most operating systems are multitasking. Pretty much anyone who frequents this forum will know that operating systems are multitasking, and given that and the fact that I said "backgrounded", it should be immediately obvious what I meant. Neither I nor anyone else here needed to explain to me (or most other people) about multitasking operating systems. This is what I was initially responding to, because the person told me to "Please learn what's what in the system you're using", which is pretty douchey in general, and especially douchey since they're lying about not understanding what I meant.

If I didn't have to ask myself the question "wait, so did they actually mean 'closed' or was that supposed to mean 'backgrounded'?" before I could parse the comment I wouldn't have bothered replying at all.