> If I’m understanding this correctly You're not. > it starts by raising this question, then argues that it’s kind of a cheap and meaningless punch-down. The

> If I’m understanding this correctly You're not. > it starts by raising this question, then argues that it’s kind of a cheap and meaningless punch-down. The cheap and meaningless punch-down in the article is the vibecoding accusation. The question in the title is actually their main line of attack against that accusation, all the way to the end. >> QED So. Where are the vibecoded Photoshops? WHERE IS THE THREAT YOU MADE UP TO ATTACK ME? >>I'm waiting. I find it hilarious that so many people are finding it so difficult to grasp even the general line of argument of the article despite trying earnestly.