The n-grandparent was not trying to discredit the facts of the article. He was discrediting the thesis that it is useless to close all applications.

The facts of the article were correct.

The thesis of the article was not correct.

The facts listed in the article said that some applications are able to run in the background.

Some application is causing battery loss. Not 'all of them', like people who are actually mistaken think, but some, like people who know the facts think.

I don't know how to explain it in a clearer way. The n-grandparent is not a cargo-culted ignorant who thinks there is a need to kill all the apps. He has one or two apps that are abusing background permission, but doesn't know which one or two. There is no 'anecdotal misunderstanding'.

You yourself agreed that the concept of a broken background app can coexist with the facts of the article. But you are conflating the thesis, the theory, with the facts. They are not one and the same. Insulting the thesis is not an attempt at discrediting the actual facts.

I apologize for ranting but redundancy can sometimes help make a point clear.