That original article was bogus and needlessly combative. I feel like the majority view in the HN comments saw it as such. Most comments were splitting hairs o

That original article was bogus and needlessly combative. I feel like the majority view in the HN comments saw it as such. Most comments were splitting hairs on what _exactly_ the Dunning-Kruger effect was, plus some general nerd-sniping on how the original article was off base. IMO it was something that fell flat on its own rather than something that needed a lengthy refutation, but I can understand that sometimes these things get under your skin.