I guess this goes at the heart of the difference in interpretation between us: where you see a good-faith effort to better understand the article, I see an atte

I guess this goes at the heart of the difference in interpretation between us: where you see a good-faith effort to better understand the article, I see an attempt to ridicule or otherwise undermine it by questioning the most basic assumptions needed to understand it. As evidence, I point out that a simple search would be far better to achieve an understanding of what the term may be referring to in this context than sending us all on a wild goose chase. Not taking this more promising route, IMHO, undermines any claim of good faith. Even if existing definitions are found lacking, they would certainly serve as a better base for discussion than the actual, unspecific dismissal of the article itself. I may also be influenced by the general tone of discussion here. This threat is currently sandwiched between two comments calling the article “rather disappointing” and “very stupid” [0], respectively. This shallow reflex to find nothing but dreck in everything, especially if it’s written by anyone who may have an education in anything but JavaScript, is getting somewhat tiring. 0: somehow, it’s the “very” that really makes that particular commment what it is.