The missing context is that I misinterpreted the article to mean that this sudoers rule was here by default. It's not... which makes this an entirely different

The missing context is that I misinterpreted the article to mean that this sudoers rule was here by default. It's not... which makes this an entirely different story. I had an inkling that this was the case, but I was too busy to verify personally and by the time I had actually realized, it was too late to delete/edit the comment. Which makes this whole thing annoying. The article shouldn't be flagged, because there's nothing technically wrong with it. I just found it confusing, and I wonder if maybe part of the reason why it was deemed interesting enough to be propelled to the frontpage is due to similar misinterpretation. (After all, I would find it VERY interesting if this WAS a default.)