That's a fine reaction to the title alone but a very bad reaction to the abstract, where the failure they're criticizing is real and not a childish misunderstan

That's a fine reaction to the title alone but a very bad reaction to the abstract, where the failure they're criticizing is real and not a childish misunderstanding of the word "is". Is the abstract misleading and the full paper is stupider than the upfront examples? If not this criticism seems like a total waste of time.