To be clear, I think the article was fine and the author did some useful work (finding a bug in the runtime of a supposedly provably correct system is indeed a

To be clear, I think the article was fine and the author did some useful work (finding a bug in the runtime of a supposedly provably correct system is indeed a valuable contribution!). I don't agree that it's pedantic to explain why the title feels like a bait-and-switch (and thus does a disservice to the article itself). It's just a bit of feedback for future reference. I take some comfort from being technically correct though; it's widely accepted by all of us pedants that that is the best kind of correct ;-)