The problem with using one word, "recall", for a massive range of issues, is that people mistake really small issues to be more in the middle of the range.

In this case the issue is tiny, the fix is tiny. It's not like a recall where a decent number of people will die from exploding gas tanks, which also falls under the word "recall".

Maybe if they added a severity, even a simple 1-5, like computer people use for vulnerabilities, or the military uses for levels of alert, or we use for storms, and so on, this would not happen.

But using the correct word can be alarmist if articles, headlines, or pundits use it to scare beliefs into the middle of the possible range when it's at the low end.

> I guess I'm just not understanding how the process name, which has been the process name for a long time, is "alarmist".

It sounds more alarming than is the case in practice. They is literally no 'recall' - you just pop in - so the word isn't even accurate if you read it literally. I'm not sure how to explain it beyond that?

I’m most familiar with a “recall” in the food industry, where the contaminated food is not salvageable. So my first impression upon reading the headline was that Ferrari was going to have to scrap or replace all cars made since 2005. Obviously that’s wrong, after reading the article.

But I think the car industry is an exception in that it makes sense to fix the effected product. Most other products that are recalled (food, or the Galaxy Note 7, or other gadgets, for example), are not quickly fixed. In those industries (most other than automotive) a “recall” means throwing away potentially huge amounts of product.

Edit: To clarify, I’m saying the title could be easily misunderstood. I understand that it is correct.