Re: Tim Cook's punishment?
Of course, you have to take such explanations with a grain of salt (not the ones upthread in particular, necessarily, but in general). There is a vast corpus of lore about English grammar, usage,1 diction, orthography, dialects, etymology, and so on, and much of it is at best weakly supported by the evidence, if not outright contradicted. Someone's already mentioned the efforts of Augustan writers to Latinize English, giving us such nonsense as the prohibition on split infinitives – a useful, if accidental, feature of English that should be welcomed by those interested in style.
Online debates about English often devolve into, if not start from, a series of jejune2 arguments appealing to such sources as dim memories of lessons learned from elementary-school teachers.
And, of course, there are many matters which are largely subjective, such as English punctuation. There pundits are primarily divided into the "scientific" school (punctuate according to grammatical structure3) and the "natural" school (punctuate so it feels right) – and the latter into the aural camp (punctuate to insert pauses where a speaker might) and visual (make it look pretty). Some reprobates will even suggest that the punctuation scheme might follow the dictates of style and change depending on purpose, tone, audience, and the like.
1When people refer offhand to English "grammar", they're more likely to be talking about usage or mechanics. Not always, of course, but more often than not.
2An English loan-word, a modification of the Latin ieiunus, "fasting", and meaning "thin", "wanting". Not, as commonly held, related to French jeune or anything like it, and has nothing to do with age. Kingsley Amis notes a reprehensible tendency among some authors to add accents to it.
3The readiness of English grammar to parse ambiguously apparently is not an obstacle.