> For all the text you have written, you have not really stated which of those to cut out, and what to replace it with. Neither one of these claims are true.

> For all the text you have written, you have not really stated which of those to cut out, and what to replace it with. Neither one of these claims are true. You're again ignoring the context on record. You yourself stated, "You can't cut out the browser, so the only thing left was that single binary you first replied to", and the general tone is implying that being this explicit for something so obvious is superfluous (and I'd agree). Even so, there's my reply in the affirmative. So the combo of so-obvious-it-doesn't-need-to-be-stated + having it stated anyway is working against you here on the claim that I never clearly described which to cut out. As for the second part, I assert that putting up a /colophon page that can function "as a substitute for your static site generator binary" similar to the hypothetical README.html that I mention in comment 28407936 <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28407936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28407936> in fact _very_ straightforwardly addresses the "what to replace it with" issue. > Is there a product or project you can recommend? That's a subtle change in criteria. Many people are not content to use anything except a homegrown static site generator, and my original reply was only supposed to refer to the concept of using the runtime that you already get for free in your browser to cut out the need for either a separate runtime ("full language" runtime, in their words) or a separate binary that needs to be installed and maintained out-of-band. It was not supposed to be a recommendation of a specific project, nor does the context demand it. > sounds dismissive/rude to the comment you were replying to (equally likely reason why you were getting downvoted) That's a new claim original to this comment only—again, changing context—and in any case is another bad reading. > But hey, I might be wrong, maybe I'm too stupid to get it I don't think you're too stupid to get it; I think you're just committed to not understanding, or that you're possibly feigning a lack of understanding well past the point where you really do understand, e.g. because your real commitment is to the issue of whether I have communicated clearly—and a sudden realization on your part (esp. of something that _was_, on a second reading, adequately conveyed but earlier missed) would conflict with that commitment.