It's general reporting by general reporters using general language for the general public. It's not a tech publication.
Joe Lunchbucket doesn't care if it's hardware that failed or software. The system failed. That's what his tax dollars pay for.
Joe Lunchbucket doesn't care if it's hardware that failed or software. The system failed. That's what his tax dollars pay for.
Joe Lunchbucket doesn't care if it's hardware that failed or software
It is the job of the writer to write for the audience, not include every single detail, no?
Based on my experience regularly communicating technical information to non-technical people, the above suggestion works out very poorly. Each technical detail is a hurdle for the listener, causing misunderstanding, frustration, feelings of inadequacy, and doubt about your competence as an advisor and communicator. Generally, they respond like most people do when confronted with something unpleasant; they tune out your message. My advice is to include the minimum possible technical details and to express them in the clearest possible non-technical language.